This was brought up by myself in another thread, and I thought it might be fun to kick this around here, rather than hijacking someone else's discussion.

Add the following table to the basic rule book:

When you want to withdraw from close quarters combat:

Roll a D6, apply any modifiers to the result and consult the following table:

If you roll under your LD you get away, no problem.
If you roll equal to your LD, you get away, but the unit suffers D3 mortal wounds.
If you roll above your LD, you are locked in combat for this turn.

Anyone have thoughts on this they'd like to share?

This would need a drastic rework of all leadership in the game (maybe a return to the old leadership profiles for most units). This would also mean certain units would suffer severely in close quarters combat.... which is actually pretty good.

I don't agree with mortal wounds, I think giving them a chance to attack in a reverse overwatch, where the attacker (the one who is trying to remain in combat) gets to roll his attacks but can only hit on a 5+. Call it Attack of Opporunity.

It would also be a pretty interesting move in general as it would make combat kind of viable.

You wouldn't have any modifiers yet though, because you fall back in your shooting phase, so you always pass.

I'd rather a variation on the old sweeping advance rule, where you and your opponent roll off. If he rolls equal or greater than you, he catches some stragglers as you fall back, and you take a number of mortal wounds equal to half your squad size, rounded down. Then you fall back as normal.

So characters could fall back in good order, as could vehicles, but larger squads risk getting cut to pieces if they try to fall back.

 Asherian Command wrote:
This would need a drastic rework of all leadership in the game (maybe a return to the old leadership profiles for most units). This would also mean certain units would suffer severely in close quarters combat.... which is actually pretty good.

I don't agree with mortal wounds, I think giving them a chance to attack in a reverse overwatch, where the attacker (the one who is trying to remain in combat) gets to roll his attacks but can only hit on a 5+. Call it Attack of Opporunity.

It would also be a pretty interesting move in general as it would make combat kind of viable.

Agreed.

let me explain my reasoning on the MW part.

Right now, the goal seems to be to keep things that would bog down the game in terms of time to a minimum. MW does that by applying a direct result, checking to see if you have FNP and then moving on. If we added some sort of Attack of Opportunity mechanic, imagine how this would bog down the game, arguments over how many attacks you could make, who is within some set number of distance in order to attack. That sort of thing. With a MW mechanic, it's simple, you choose to leave, you roll equal, roll D3 get result of a 2 and pick up two models. Then you move out of CC. It's fast, simple and it rewards your opponent for you choosing to leave, evening out how deadly shooting could be, and weakening the unit that chose to leave.

One consideration would be how to handle this with Tanks. Tanks for example, could ignore this rule. They just leave, because it is impossible for a bunch of guard or marines to stop a landraider from just driving over them, crushing them to death as if they were putty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Horst wrote:
You wouldn't have any modifiers yet though, because you fall back in your shooting phase, so you always pass.

I'd rather a variation on the old sweeping advance rule, where you and your opponent roll off. If he rolls equal or greater than you, he catches some stragglers as you fall back, and you take a number of mortal wounds equal to half your squad size, rounded down. Then you fall back as normal.

So characters could fall back in good order, as could vehicles, but larger squads risk getting cut to pieces if they try to fall back.

This seems like a good compromise. Things like Tyranid Lashwhips could add + X to the result against a unit that is trying to leave, for example. Dark Eldar have nets so something similar too for them and anyone else with those types of weapons.

2d6 rolloff. Done

Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

You can, but again, this leads into huge problems. How far away can they be to get their hit in? A lot of assault units have varying types of weapons, numbers of attacks. It exponentially grows if there were multiple charges, or units multi-charge different units. Arguments will become a problem. Having a roll off that leads into automatic wounds keeps it super simple.

Consider this change.

Roll off 2d6.

If you win, you leave combat. If you lose, you suffer 1 mortal wound and remain in combat for the next turn.

 Togusa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

You can, but again, this leads into huge problems. How far away can they be to get their hit in? A lot of assault units have varying types of weapons, numbers of attacks. It exponentially grows if there were multiple charges, or units multi-charge different units. Arguments will become a problem. Having a roll off that leads into automatic wounds keeps it super simple.

Consider this change.

Roll off 2d6.

If you win, you leave combat. If you lose, you suffer 1 mortal wound and remain in combat for the next turn.

1. As far away as normal before the opposing squad moves away
2. Multiple attacks really isn't a problem. Overwatch ain't a problem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Make it so you leave combat, but the people hit you with their attacks on a 6+.

No reason to make it so complicated.

You can, but again, this leads into huge problems. How far away can they be to get their hit in? A lot of assault units have varying types of weapons, numbers of attacks. It exponentially grows if there were multiple charges, or units multi-charge different units. Arguments will become a problem. Having a roll off that leads into automatic wounds keeps it super simple.

Consider this change.

Roll off 2d6.

If you win, you leave combat. If you lose, you suffer 1 mortal wound and remain in combat for the next turn.

1. As far away as normal before the opposing squad moves away
2. Multiple attacks really isn't a problem. Overwatch ain't a problem.

Overwatch is shooting and this would be close combat, how would you count units leaving combat? Would you count all units even the ones not touching base... Its a jar of worms.

You're making it into a can of worms, not me. Same rules as for melee apply. See who would normally be in range to attack in melee, your opponent flees and you make your attacks.

I don't understand what's complicated about it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're making it into a can of worms, not me. Same rules as for melee apply. See who would normally be in range to attack in melee, your opponent flees and you make your attacks.

I don't understand what's complicated about it.

Because at tournaments it's going to lead to arguments, people trying to game the system. Pile ins will take more thought and will be argued to death. It's much more simple to just apply a straight effect and to add yet another round of rolling multiple dice, at multiple strengths, ap, and distances.

How is this not simple----> Roll 2d6. If you win, move away unharmed. If you lose, stay in combat and suffer one MW.

Make a roll, and apply the result and then move on. Seems to be the most simple and least hassled option to me.

I feel like i've seen this before, maybe it was with Ld+d6 vs opponents Ld+d6. IIRC tyranids were not having it, necrons were happy with it, marines felt like they should be better than everyone else. Seems like it could help keep T'au from kiting.

Personally, I'd prefer giving Melee overwatch to the unit you are disengaging from - they get their melee attacks, but only hit on 6.

Falling back from Tau isn't too hard. Turn your back on a bunch of Khorne Berserkers though....

I'm also in favor of leaving combat only with some penalties. Shooting is already too rewarding in comparison with melee and close combat needs more consideration.

Melee overwatch sounds fine and it's definitely easy enough to apply. Where are the complications?

 Asherian Command wrote:
This would need a drastic rework of all leadership in the game (maybe a return to the old leadership profiles for most units). This would also mean certain units would suffer severely in close quarters combat.... which is actually pretty good.

I don't agree with mortal wounds, I think giving them a chance to attack in a reverse overwatch, where the attacker (the one who is trying to remain in combat) gets to roll his attacks but can only hit on a 5+. Call it Attack of Opporunity.

It would also be a pretty interesting move in general as it would make combat kind of viable.

Uuu more dice rolls to slow down the already slowest edition of 40k.

Ok you've already had to add an exception to the rule for vehicals, which I get.
But how exactlly do you deal with flying units?
What about Monster's? Whould this apply to infantry falling back from a vehical?
What about a dreadnaught?

Back before 8th I was making a version of 40k that allowed you to leave combat called a Tactical Retreat.

You rolled 1d6 + Movement characteristic. Opponent rolled 1d6 + movement. If the retreating unit rolled higher they got away fine. If the enemy rolled higher you suffered a number of wounds that could not be negated by any means (mortal wounds) = to the difference in rolls. (if the retreating unit rolled a 7 but the enemy rolled a 9 you suffered 2 mortal wounds) Important to note, the unit gets to retreat no matter what. You ALWAYS get to leave combat. The only question is if you get to leave unscathed.

I.E. terminators running from bikes was generally never going to work out for the terminators. But bikes and jump infantry could do hit and run tactics fairly reliably because of their speed and mobility. Tyranids were a nightmare to escape from and their speed and numbers made them n overwhelming threat once they were on you. But mostly infantry vs infantry had a fair shake at escaping unscathed but always a risk.

 Blackie wrote:
I'm also in favor of leaving combat only with some penalties. Shooting is already too rewarding in comparison with melee and close combat needs more consideration.

Melee overwatch sounds fine and it's definitely easy enough to apply. Where are the complications?

The complications arise from: how many hits do you get? Base it on the number of models that would fight if it were a fight phase, arguments on who's in range and so on.
Also its a slew of extra dice rolling. You're rolling to hit, maybe separating out which weapons at doing the hitting, rolling to wound, and rolling to save - that's potentially a lot more dice rolling added to any one game, depending on how often you fall back.

It may be the least abstract way to represent it, and seems like it makes sense, but its awkward, can lead to arguments, and adds a bunch of time to the game either way.


Something simpler, though considerably more abstract would be: Roll a D6 for every model in the unit Falling Back, for every 1, that unit suffers a mortal wound.
Representing the enemy getting a lucky hit or two in on the back of a fleeing opponent. Characters and vehicles won't really care too much, small units are likely to be fairly ok, makes it risky for larger units - but then it probably should be. Quick, easy and leaves no room for argument on the field. Some units might get special rules to reduce or evade this entirely perhaps.

Play it exactly like overwatch, just using attacks instead of number of shots the melee weapons' profiles instead of ranged ones. Where's the complication? Is overwatch complicated?

As others have said, an Melee Overwatch is the easiest solution and is NOT very complicated.

Just follow all that same rules as Overwatch in reverse, but instead of shooting, you attack with your melee weapons hitting on 6 regardless of modifiers prior to the enemy unit moving
It works just fine.

If multiple units are in the combat, you would only get this "Attack of Opportunity" if the leaving unit would leave YOUR unit unengaged.
If another units is still engaged with yours, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't be able to attack, just like Overwatch doesn't allow it on subsequent units charging. You are too occupied with the unit you are STILL engaged with to be able to attack the Falling Back/Charging unit.

-

Ice_can wrote:
Ok you've already had to add an exception to the rule for vehicals, which I get.
But how exactlly do you deal with flying units?
What about Monster's? Whould this apply to infantry falling back from a vehical?
What about a dreadnaught?

I don't think you should ever be able to charge a flying vehicle. Flying infantry, it makes sense because they can land.
Dreadnoughts and monsters would follow infantry rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
As others have said, an Melee Overwatch is the easiest solution and is NOT very complicated.

Just follow all that same rules as Overwatch in reverse, but instead of shooting, you attack with your melee weapons hitting on 6 regardless of modifiers prior to the enemy unit moving
It works just fine.

If multiple units are in the combat, you would only get this "Attack of Opportunity" if the leaving unit would leave YOUR unit unengaged.
If another units is still engaged with yours, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn't be able to attack, just like Overwatch doesn't allow it on subsequent units charging. You are too occupied with the unit you are STILL engaged with to be able to attack the Falling Back/Charging unit.

-

It still feels like it would slow down the game too much. What exactly is wrong with Roll 2d6, win, move away or Roll 2d6 lose, suffer a wound and stay. That is literally the most simple, direct and easy to use rule you could make. No extra die rolling, no calculating different AP. No special rules to allow models to hit on a 5+ or something like that. Just roll, apply affect, move on.

The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

I wouldn’t say it is. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. It mostly depends on the narrative and “detail level” you want to put forth. Personally, I’d like to avoid anything that dishes out mortal wounds - I just think that MW’s are bad for the game.

 Stormonu wrote:
Personally, I’d like to avoid anything that dishes out mortal wounds - I just think that MW’s are bad for the game.

Agree and disagree. I think MWs are great for the game....so long as they aren't overused.

I'd be fine with Fall Back doing damage somehow, based on a roll of some kind, but having that roll fail mean the unit cannot fall back is too far. 40K doesn't need tarpits again

-

 Galef wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Personally, I’d like to avoid anything that dishes out mortal wounds - I just think that MW’s are bad for the game.

Agree and disagree. I think MWs are great for the game....so long as they aren't overused.

I'd be fine with Fall Back doing damage somehow, based on a roll of some kind, but having that roll fail mean the unit cannot fall back is too far. 40K doesn't need tarpits again

-

How about you just have to make an armor save? Instead of a mortal wound?

 Galef wrote:
The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

That makes sense. Someone else in the thread suggested that the wounds be applied, and then you are still allowed to charge.

Roll 2d6, pass, fall back.
Roll 2d6, fail, X MW, fall back.

Is this maybe a bit better.

What if a unit can elect to move instead of attack in combat?

so, if you are charged, then the charged unit gets to fight in combat before you anyway, so no running before they swing. If you elect to move away then you sacrifice your attacks, unlike now.

so to summarise:

Flee: Instead of attacking, move D6", and if not within 1" of an enemy unit after this move then you are no longer engaged in combat. units with a movement of 10" or more move 2D6".

Piling in would still work the same, so if you start 1" away, roll a 3 and move 3", and do so before the opponents attack, their pile-in will still get them in range and you'll still be attacked - but you sacrifice attacking back to try it. so infantry have a 50:50 or less chance of escaping, bikers are much more likely to, but if you wait and weather the attacks, you will almost certainly escape as the enemy will already have piled in.

I don't recall if "end of phase pile in" is still a thing, but if it is then it would have to be removed as well.


This would bypass the whole "we get to attack but not pile in and hit on 6's" thing of melee overwatch, which would really cause issues with multiple units as, if you don't pile in, people will remove models to try and mitigate any other units attacks etc.

It is also an easy thing to work in with modifiers to make units better or worse at it - for example, meganobs could get -1 to their flee rolls because they're so slow. hormagaunts could get +1" to pile in, to make them harder to escape.

crazy off-beat idea not to be taken seriously:


I think that this would work well with the current rules without adding too much, as the chance of not escaping is covered by the pile-in move and subsequent attacks, where you have not attacked at all. It makes the decision of running before or after more key on what you're fighting - If it will kill you in one round, then run before it swings and hope you roll well. if you can weather it's attacks, then flee afterwards for a more guaranteed result.

Pre-empted response: "Bezerkers attack twice so will be impossible to escape" - can they pile-in / attack again if not engaged in combat? if not, then successfully fleeing will cut short their rampage. if they can, then yes, the scariest psychopaths in the game are a bad thing to be in combat with.

edit - additional rules for what you can/cannot do if you fled in the last combat phase will need to be applied, so people don't flee so that they can charge for bonuses. only hit on 6's in shooting and cannot charge would be a good option, which is then affected by all the "can shoot or assault normally after fleeing but not both" rules that are in place now.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

That makes sense. Someone else in the thread suggested that the wounds be applied, and then you are still allowed to charge.

Roll 2d6, pass, fall back.
Roll 2d6, fail, X MW, fall back.

Is this maybe a bit better.

Yeah, that's better, but rather than X MWs, why not make it X auto-wounds, with X being the number of enemy models within 1" of the unit Falling back.
That's easy to calculate and scales well with the enemy unit you're Falling back from

And being auto-wounds rather than MWs avoids the over saturation of MWs, while also avoiding weird situations like a Land Raider taking MWs from Grots
It might make sense to take auto-wounds (that are savable) while it is in retreat since the enemy can hit a unit's vulnerable spots, but MWs is just too much

-

Melee overwatch is a lot of pointless rolling for little damage, and has little effect on the units that makes fall back such a pain.

If you want a simple solution? Any unit that was fall back'd from can make a consolidate move. This prevents units falling back just a inch, gives assault units a chance to run into cover or other nearby units, and encourages taking counter assault units to allow safe extraction from a brawl.That last one is kind of important, actually. melee overwatch doesn't really encourage different actions, since the units you're normally going to be assaulting first are expendable that people don't care about taking a little extra damage.

 Galef wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galef wrote:
The problem is failing the roll meaning you CANNOT fallback. Many units are designed to be able to do stuff when they fall back. This change would bring back tarpitting, which IMO is too far in the opposite direct.
There does need to be a stronger consequence for Falling back than not being able to shoot or charge, but making it so risky that you might not even get to fall back is too much.

Allowing the unit to be attacked also scales better according to the unit you are falling back from.
A Rhino, for example isn't going to be able to do as much to you as a unit of 20 Berserkers.
Just making it MWs takes this scale away.

There's a difference between making a rule simple for simplicity sake, and making simple rules that also make sense.

-

That makes sense. Someone else in the thread suggested that the wounds be applied, and then you are still allowed to charge.

Roll 2d6, pass, fall back.
Roll 2d6, fail, X MW, fall back.

Is this maybe a bit better.

Yeah, that's better, but rather than X MWs, why not make it X auto-wounds, with X being the number of enemy models within 1" of the unit Falling back.
That's easy to calculate and scales well with the enemy unit you're Falling back from

And being auto-wounds rather than MWs avoids the over saturation of MWs, while also avoiding weird situations like a Land Raider taking MWs from Grots
It might make sense to take auto-wounds (that are savable) while it is in retreat since the enemy can hit a unit's vulnerable spots, but MWs is just too much

-

Because one Dreadnought should be scarier to run away from than two grots.

Which is why a melee equivalent of Overwatch scales not terribly and does a good job of what we imagine would happen. It honestly isn't hard to implement.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which is why a melee equivalent of Overwatch scales not terribly and does a good job of what we imagine would happen. It honestly isn't hard to implement.

But it is, in my opinion, not enough.

Your average Close Combat unit gets shot turn one, might get shot turn two, and has to survive overwatch to make it to close combat. A single extra round of hitting on 6s does not make up for that.

And yes, I know some units can charge turn one. That's generally too good as well.

Maybe a -2 to hit with a max of 6+?

I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.

My suggestion on the last page covers a lot of that - it makes when you leave combat a tactical decision, and it puts in a chance that you don't succeed - you might get caught! and the punishment for trying to run and getting caught is simply that you don't get to attack, but the enemy do.

Quoted for peoples ease:


The only thing I would add to help faster units more scary than slow units, would be that pile-in moves are half your movement, rounding up. no real change to infantry, except meganobs, (who should be easy to run from!) and it makes bikers and jet packs harder to run from - which makes sense!

I'm just not a fan of people walking away and their opponents not pursuing. they're not rooted to the spot, after all!

other tactics this could cause - moving the combat away from a key area, or towards. luring combat armies out of position, that sort of thing.

 some bloke wrote:
I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.

Even with melee overwatch it's extremely unrealistic for grots to wound a land raider. Take a 30 man blob locked with a land raider, which is already unlikely because grots would have suffered casualties previously but let's assume that all of them managed to survive. A melee overwatch means and average of 5 hits, wounding on 6s before the 2+ save kicks in. 0 wounds to the land raider, maybe one with very very very lucky rolls.

 Blackie wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.

Even with melee overwatch it's extremely unrealistic for grots to wound a land raider. Take a 30 man blob locked with a land raider, which is already unlikely because grots would have suffered casualties previously but let's assume that all of them managed to survive. A melee overwatch means and average of 5 hits, wounding on 6s before the 2+ save kicks in. 0 wounds to the land raider, maybe one with very very very lucky rolls.

The grots vs landraider scenario was mainly In the suggestions for mortal wounds or auto wounds if you flee badly.

That aside, I do think that units being able to flee instead of fight would be the simplest solution - don't do it in the movement phase!

 Blackie wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.

Even with melee overwatch it's extremely unrealistic for grots to wound a land raider. Take a 30 man blob locked with a land raider, which is already unlikely because grots would have suffered casualties previously but let's assume that all of them managed to survive. A melee overwatch means and average of 5 hits, wounding on 6s before the 2+ save kicks in. 0 wounds to the land raider, maybe one with very very very lucky rolls.

It's was stated as to why MW to fall back was a bad design.

Melee overwatch works, as it also makes running away from a knight, dreadnaught more scary that running from a landraider.
And wow is the unit that runs from bezerkers.

It also means units with good saves fear it much less than glass cannons and running away from bashees is more worrying for marines than running from guardsmen.
Like it should be.

Ice_can wrote:


It's was stated as to why MW to fall back was a bad design.

Melee overwatch works, as it also makes running away from a knight, dreadnaught more scary that running from a landraider.
And wow is the unit that runs from bezerkers.

It also means units with good saves fear it much less than glass cannons and running away from bashees is more worrying for marines than running from guardsmen.
Like it should be.

But not aspects have yet addressed the issue that a unit might not make it out of combat. The previous proposals have been that the unit just walks away as their opponent throws some punches and stays put. do you really see bezerkers just letting their opponents walk away?

My suggestion would better imitate "realism" (in the abstract sense that it can be applied to 40k) in that either you run away and they try to catch you, or some of your guys get killed while the rest run away (in the game this is being attacked and then fleeing). not so much a heroic sacrifice as some of them not realising the rest were running. if you are lucky, or very fast, you can get away safely. but the majority of infantry would have to take a round of being hit and then disengage, as they would almost certainly be caught whilst walking away.

I don't think that "melee overwatch" represents it very well. you won't just stand still and swing whilst they walk off. but you might kill someone, then look up to find the rest of them running. if anything, "melee overwatch" should be more likely to hit, as the opponent isn't focussed on the fight, they're focussed on getting out of it!

If Melee overwatch is the way to go, I would suggest each model in CC distance before the move gets 1 autohit on the fleeing unit, rather than hitting on 6's. or just that they get a round of attacks. But my personal stance is to not have the melee overwatch, and to have failure as an option - you might try to flee, but you might not succeed.

Bah! My post was eaten!

I'd like to suggest a couple of alternatives.

1. If you Fall Back, the enemy has a chance to simply follow you. Exactly how to work this, I'm not sure. Perhaps a simple pursuit roll with -1 to the enemy roll?

2. Fall Back is declared at the start of the combat round, and limits the casualties you can inflict to enemy models within 1"/2" (salt to taste). This represents your unit working toward or staying on the edge of the combat, rather than getting properly stuck in. Trade off in killing power for the freedom to just nick off.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. And are just suggestions.

Im still the biggest fan of this change:


Falling back: You can choose to fall back out of combat during your movement phase. If you do, roll 2d6. All models in the unit must move this many inch's away from the unit they are falling back from. Your opponent (if not still engaged by another unit) may then make a charge attempt immediately againgst the unit that fell back. They cannot get within 1" of any other unit that they were not previously engaged with. During the assault phase, if the enemy unit managed to suceed their charge, they act as if they had charged.

 some bloke wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


It's was stated as to why MW to fall back was a bad design.

Melee overwatch works, as it also makes running away from a knight, dreadnaught more scary that running from a landraider.
And wow is the unit that runs from bezerkers.

It also means units with good saves fear it much less than glass cannons and running away from bashees is more worrying for marines than running from guardsmen.
Like it should be.

But not aspects have yet addressed the issue that a unit might not make it out of combat. The previous proposals have been that the unit just walks away as their opponent throws some punches and stays put. do you really see bezerkers just letting their opponents walk away?

My suggestion would better imitate "realism" (in the abstract sense that it can be applied to 40k) in that either you run away and they try to catch you, or some of your guys get killed while the rest run away (in the game this is being attacked and then fleeing). not so much a heroic sacrifice as some of them not realising the rest were running. if you are lucky, or very fast, you can get away safely. but the majority of infantry would have to take a round of being hit and then disengage, as they would almost certainly be caught whilst walking away.

I don't think that "melee overwatch" represents it very well. you won't just stand still and swing whilst they walk off. but you might kill someone, then look up to find the rest of them running. if anything, "melee overwatch" should be more likely to hit, as the opponent isn't focussed on the fight, they're focussed on getting out of it!

If Melee overwatch is the way to go, I would suggest each model in CC distance before the move gets 1 autohit on the fleeing unit, rather than hitting on 6's. or just that they get a round of attacks. But my personal stance is to not have the melee overwatch, and to have failure as an option - you might try to flee, but you might not succeed.

Under that logic, units firing Overwatch should be moving back from the charging unit too.

Seriously you guys are making it over complicated.
1. They in range to hit a dude?
2. Everyone makes their attacks
3. Remove casualties and the unit makes its move.

It's simple and effective.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im still the biggest fan of this change:


Falling back: You can choose to fall back out of combat during your movement phase. If you do, roll 2d6. All models in the unit must move this many inch's away from the unit they are falling back from. Your opponent (if not still engaged by another unit) may then make a charge attempt immediately againgst the unit that fell back. They cannot get within 1" of any other unit that they were not previously engaged with. During the assault phase, if the enemy unit managed to suceed their charge, they act as if they had charged.

I don't like that change as it doesn't punish the other opposing player enough. If the unit is turning tail to run then the other unit should get an attack of opportunity and have a chance to deal damage. Punishing the retreating player if they fail their dice roll. This would make some melee units far better and not be stuck in a tar pit for the rest of the game.

Why should you punish them for making a smart move? That seems a bit like an overreaction. The goal isn't to punish anyone.

The goal is to make it so that both players have counter play and none feels helpless.


My method does just that. It forces the person falling back to move an unknown amount of inches in an attempt to get away, without guaranteeing they do get away. If they dont move far enough the pursuing player gets to act as though they've charged on their turn.

It gives the pursuing player a chance to avoid getting shot with their melee unit at the expense of board position, since they have to go straight into (and only into) the unit falling back.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why should you punish them for making a smart move? That seems a bit like an overreaction. The goal isn't to punish anyone.

The goal is to make it so that both players have counter play and none feels helpless.

Not at all, shooting is already too rewarding in comparison with close combat. I'm against tarpits that can last the entire game but falling back should always carry some (real) penalties. It's not a smart move if a unit that has little melee output decides to fall back, it's an auto move.

It isn't an auto move with my change though. They now have to make a decision. If they try to fall back and the opponent catch's them, they now might not get to attack them at all, and any units counter charging have to deal with them also being at charge initiative.


That's not even counting the free movement its giving them into their own territory.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why should you punish them for making a smart move? That seems a bit like an overreaction. The goal isn't to punish anyone.

The goal is to make it so that both players have counter play and none feels helpless.


My method does just that. It forces the person falling back to move an unknown amount of inches in an attempt to get away, without guaranteeing they do get away. If they dont move far enough the pursuing player gets to act as though they've charged on their turn.

It gives the pursuing player a chance to avoid getting shot with their melee unit at the expense of board position, since they have to go straight into (and only into) the unit falling back.

Here, I’d like to apply some LARP experience.

Once you’ve engaged someone, it’s incredibly risky, without distraction, to disengage. When you’re attacking, you’re literally pressing the attack. Keep pushing forward, don’t give them a chance to gather their wits. If I need to pull out? That is precisely when break the first rule, and Get Ded.

Shot to the head is good like. But a stab to the kidneys when they’re trying to turn tail is arguably better. And quicker. And a whole lot more fun.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
It isn't an auto move with my change though. They now have to make a decision. If they try to fall back and the opponent catch's them, they now might not get to attack them at all, and any units counter charging have to deal with them also being at charge initiative.


That's not even counting the free movement its giving them into their own territory.

Even with the current rules if they fall back they can't attack them at all, unless they have special rules that allow that. Like fly, titanic, etc... What about being completely destroyed if they don't manage to get out of combat and the enemy unit catches them? Now it's sounds like a tactical decision.

@MD Grotsnik: Normally i'd agree, but were playing a game here. We want both fair and fun without any kind of FeelsBadMan if possible.

@Blackie: Sometimes though, its actually a bonus for you to kill their unit that was otherwise just gonna be in the way. Getting stuck in combat is actually worse of a deal to the guy falling back than loosing his unit. There is no doubt that my suggestion is better than killing or damaging the falling back unit instead (at least in 8th edition).

One idea had to fix fleeing from combat was
1) Psuedo Old Sweeping Advance. Each player rolls 1d6 adding there movement. If the retreating players rolls higher they get away. This will provide an interesting usage to fast moving but low attacks units in melee. And would make the movement characteristic that more relavent.

2) You need to pass a leadership check, at LD-Casulties taking in the squad that game.

I like 1 a lot more. Being remisicient of old sweeping Advance.

40k absolutely needs a free strike mechanic like WMH has. Right now there is practically no disadvantage to leaving melee, other than the unit being unable to shoot (Oh the humanity! Now the rest of my army can shoot that unit instead).

The mortal wounds thing seems fine to me- It should be dangerous in melee and it takes effort to get there. There is a core problem in this game of certain unit's traditional roles getting stifled. Things like Carnifexes and Wraithlords where part of the tactics of using these units was to keep them in melee as they were actually safer in there than out of it (Wraithlords especially)- you cannot do this now as the unit will just move away.

OTOH I agree with the OP Tanks should be immune. This is another thing that 40k desperately needs- a Trample mechanic just like WMH has too. Tanks should just be able to run over those Cultists/Grots/whatever that are blocking them.

How bout this idea, since we are seeing this in an abstract form (i.e the guardsmen squad numbering 10 people are trying to run from the massive bloodthirster while others are trying to shoot it) how bout we try and represent the hectic chaos that is close combat and shooting by implementing this rule:

Choose a target (amendment)

add the following at the end of the paragraph

"Models that target an enemy unit that was within 1" of a friendly model during the movement phase can only be hit on a roll of a 6, irrespective of the firing model's ballistic Skill or any modifiers"


This is much different than Overwatch and could be it's own thing. It makes sense that the army would try and kill that priority threat, what doesn't make sense is that there is no penalties involved to anyone else except the unit that fell back.

This would change how people address close combat, as simply running away drastically reduces the ability to apply firepower to the unit, which in turn would make people think more about close combat and the advantages and disadvantages it brings to the table.

This would do the following:

Close combat actually has a pseudo safety net. No more units fall back and the whole enemy army obliterates the target off the map

Close combat has more tactical viability as people can either build using it or try and find ways to minimize it's effect. MSU and Chaff can fall easily into this category

Close combat heavy armies can actually do more than what they currently can do. This means that armies don't need to build around units that stack close combat heavily and can actually diversify into the more moderate close combat units (i.e no longer need to spam bezerkers and bloodletters to actually get the unit killed, but can use other more cheaper means)

I would feel that this simple change would be a good compromise, as shooting can still try and kill the target, but it's not as easy as one unit falls back and the threat is gone. This also forces people to think about positioning, firing placements, units and all the different things involved with fighting against close combat.

In a way, this would make close combat just as viable as shooting

Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.

 skchsan wrote:
Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.

No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.

hense the proposal i suggested before. a compromise between close combat having a "safety net" and shooting having another chance at killing the target before they go back into CC

 Asherian Command wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.

No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.

That doesn't follow. Simply changing when fall back occurs need not change the mechanic of fall back itself.

Fall back just needs to not grant free shooting against the unit it fell back from.

 skchsan wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.

No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.

That doesn't follow. Simply changing when fall back occurs need not change the mechanic of fall back itself.

Fall back just needs to not grant free shooting against the unit it fell back from.

Fall back needs to have a chance to fail. If it doesn't then it has no draw backs.

Because it will always punish close combat squads if a combat is broken, the protection of close combat is the squad not being targeted by range.

Test it out my way, you will like it. It doesn't punish any player, it gives options that could cause negitives. It makes you decide whether the chance is worth it or not, and provides a way for melee units to be safe from shooting without completely shutting down a shooty army.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im still the biggest fan of this change:


Falling back: You can choose to fall back out of combat during your movement phase. If you do, roll 2d6. All models in the unit must move this many inch's away from the unit they are falling back from. Your opponent (if not still engaged by another unit) may then make a charge attempt immediately againgst the unit that fell back. They cannot get within 1" of any other unit that they were not previously engaged with. During the assault phase, if the enemy unit managed to suceed their charge, they act as if they had charged.

I see one huge problem with this.

The fact that your allowing Screening units to actually be a literal screen blocker is a problem in itself.

In a practical scenario, a shooting player would do this because of this rule.

a) move one of his units and stretch them to the edge of coherency at one specific point behind the unit that was in CC, or within a pattern that allows a unit to be held in it while maintaining coherency

B) fall back the unit into the other unit, blocking it from the enemy.


Now your opponent has to roll extremely high because of this rule,

here are some pictures of the scenario:










And before you say "but you have to stay within 2" coherency?!? This is 2" coherency (Actually it's more 1.6" as 2" made it even easier for models to do this)

This is what your ruling would do, this would be the norm for shooting armies, especially shooting armies that have fly or can ignore models. And since charging doesn't apply the fly rule now, even fly units have to go around.

You ruling would destroy CC as it is, because no one could use it without getting shafted by their enemy

 Asherian Command wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.

No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.

That doesn't follow. Simply changing when fall back occurs need not change the mechanic of fall back itself.

Fall back just needs to not grant free shooting against the unit it fell back from.

Fall back needs to have a chance to fail. If it doesn't then it has no draw backs.

Because it will always punish close combat squads if a combat is broken, the protection of close combat is the squad not being targeted by range.

I'm with skschan on this one. skschan's suggestion would make it so that a melee unit would not be left open to an army's worth of shooting just because the enemy fell back. If the shooty player wants to deal with the melee player's melee unit, he needs to field screening units, field countercharge units, or make sure that the next unit the melee unit charges is going to die as a result of that charge so that he can shoot them up on his own turn.

Having a chance to fail isn't really a "drawback" the way I think you're using it here. It isn't generally a careful tactical choice to run your shooty unit away from the stabby unit. Most shooty units in 40k will not trade well with most stabby units in 40k in melee. I'm not going to leave fire warriors locked in with berzerkers or incubi because they might catch me or because they'll count as charging in the fight phase. My fire warriors/marines were never going to punch that unit hard enough for staying in close combat to be a real option at all. I will absolutely attempt to have my fire warriors fall back every time because there's really no reason not to do so. If falling back is considered a problem, then a roll off to see if the fall back fails is a mechanic that only addresses the problem part of the time.

The problem with falling back isn't that it lacks a drawback. (The drawback is, except with Flying units, that they can't generally shoot or charge afterwards). The problem with falling back is that it leaves stabby units exposed. Skschan's suggestion spares the stabby unit from being shot at without basically just insisting that the shooty unit stick around for however many turns it takes to die horribly. It also gets rid of all the extra steps some of the other proposals involve. While melee "overwatch" attacks have some parody with overwatch, overwatch itself is a problematic mechanic that slows the game down and doesn't make a difference, except when it does at which point it's a feels bad rule.

Basically, if we're assuming that falling back is a problem, the solution is not to spend a bunch of time tossing a couple spare wounds on the fleeing unit. Those fire warriors will never be discouraged from falling back because they might lose a couple of dudes when the alternative is losing their entire squad. At that point, you're just punishing your opponent for using a feelsbad rule (falling back) by subjecting him to a spiteful feelsbad rule (wounds inflicted when the unit flees). But a mechanic that just says, "Sometimes the fallback doesn't work" probably doesn't fix the problem either because you're just making the feelsbad rule happen less often rather than getting rid of what makes the rule problematic.

Skschan's suggestion isn't perfect (it does make it much harder for some armies to really deal with melee units other than hoping that their shooty units die when they want them to), but it's quick, simple, and spares the melee unit from being unloaded on by the waiting gunline. Plus it makes melee units that don't have a downfield delivery system more appealing. That stabby unit that isn't especially fast and lacks access to deepstrike can be responsible for countercharging those death company or ork boyz that just charged your screen.

That said, I'm more reluctant to agree with the premise that protecting melee armies from the fall back mechanic is all that important these days. A couple deepstriking ork boy blobs that you can't fall back from and soften up with shooting is kind of a terrifying prospect.

@mchammadad


Theres a reason why what your saying wouldn't work reliably. That's the random distance and the fact that they have to go straight away, as far as the dice say. The falling back player has no control over how far they go, or which direction they go when falling back.

This makes doing the blocking maneuver not really work. Not to mention, if it actually is an issue, its a very easy fix. You just add in a line to the rule stating "A player must preform all fall back moves at the start of the movement phase before regular moves".

Basically no one method is perfect.

Skchsans method is not something new, it has been discussed when 8th edition first came out, it was mostly a reaction from the close combat players because of how lopsided the current ruleset is.

That saying, moving fallback to the end of the shooting phase leaves no counter play mechanics, as that CC unit can simply re-charge that unit that fell back and get themselves closer to the gunline every time they pile in and consolidate.

An overwatch style Melee is basically useless as a mechanic. Giving the unit that is going to be wiped out by the rest of the army the small opportunity to kill the squad they couldn't kill in the round is a kick in the balls, and is frankly just picking at straws.

The main issue that melee faces is the fact they cannot get the safety net they have been given for 4 editions, which ironically enough is the tarpit fight.

A good system would compromise between both extremes. On the one hand, you don't want fall back to be a useless gimmick as it covers something that most people agree had to be implemented in the game to stop tarpitting.

On the other hand, you can't have the current ruleset as it gives melee oriented armies no chance of standing on even ground with shooting oriented armies. In it's current state, there is no counterplay mechanic for the melee army.


Hense the suggestion i made a few post ago.

Giving units that were engaged in melee in the movement phase a reverse "hard to hit" mechanic is most likely the best compromise you could give to melee armies. It rewards CC oriented armies that succeed in getting into CC a "safety net". this being in the form of only being able to hit them on a 6, while giving the enemy army an opportunity to do some counter play (i.e you can still shoot the unit). I will admit it's not perfect, mechanics like these usually get people to take units that can get static to hits, but this would ensure that both sides at least can say the game treats them fairly as mechanics based armies.

mchammadad wrote:
That saying, moving fallback to the end of the shooting phase leaves no counter play mechanics, as that CC unit can simply re-charge that unit that fell back and get themselves closer to the gunline every time they pile in and consolidate.

Fall back happens during your turn, so the unit that was disengaged from will only be able to re-charge the same unit in the subsequent turn.

Currently, counter play to a charge is fall back, and the counter play to fall back is that the unit left behind is open to fire to kingdom come. In other words, theres no counter play to a fall back - this is what needs to be addressed, not just a penalty system for a fall back.

The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

Bharring wrote:
The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

I get where you're coming from, and that tends to work out against balanced armies. It's the gunline armies and armies with efficient screens that really create the problem. If my charging unit managed to kill a squad of marines or tie up a leman russ for a turn, I can feel okay about the work that melee unit has done. But when all I did was kill ~50 points of guardsmen and then lose twice or thrice that to the firepower of the unit(s) they were screening.

Now, if my army happens to be pretty balanced, I might be able to clear out those screens before utilizing my delivery system (be it transports, psychic powers, or deepstrike) so that the unit I charge is more worthwhile. If I'm playing an army that strongly favors melee (most daemon armies, vanilla ork armies without an eye towards dakka, etc.), then there's a much better chance that screens will keep me from doing efficient damage.

I guess my point is that the penalty of not being able to shoot after falling back frequently doesn't come up when you're facing lists that happen to have the most tools for shooting up your units after the screen dies or falls back. And that's where the most frustrating fall back related moments come from. If my incubi bounce off of someone's tactical marines and they proceed to fall back so that their devastator buddies can shoot me, that stinks for me, but it doesn't sting as much as when I charge some fire warriors or guardsmen, barely do any damage to their army as a whole, and then get blasted away because that's what their army is good at.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

I get where you're coming from, and that tends to work out against balanced armies. It's the gunline armies and armies with efficient screens that really create the problem. If my charging unit managed to kill a squad of marines or tie up a leman russ for a turn, I can feel okay about the work that melee unit has done. But when all I did was kill ~50 points of guardsmen and then lose twice or thrice that to the firepower of the unit(s) they were screening.

Now, if my army happens to be pretty balanced, I might be able to clear out those screens before utilizing my delivery system (be it transports, psychic powers, or deepstrike) so that the unit I charge is more worthwhile. If I'm playing an army that strongly favors melee (most daemon armies, vanilla ork armies without an eye towards dakka, etc.), then there's a much better chance that screens will keep me from doing efficient damage.

I guess my point is that the penalty of not being able to shoot after falling back frequently doesn't come up when you're facing lists that happen to have the most tools for shooting up your units after the screen dies or falls back. And that's where the most frustrating fall back related moments come from. If my incubi bounce off of someone's tactical marines and they proceed to fall back so that their devastator buddies can shoot me, that stinks for me, but it doesn't sting as much as when I charge some fire warriors or guardsmen, barely do any damage to their army as a whole, and then get blasted away because that's what their army is good at.

Well said. This is the problem CC has faced since 8th edition. The fact that the unit doing the melee combat doesnt always go to plan and ends up dying because a unit half or a quarter of it's points cost walks away from the equivalent of murphy's law and then proceeds to get obliterated without doing anything.

Hell, it could just be the unit not even getting into combat. That's basically a complete waste of points, you might as well play with half the points of your opponents army if your a melee focused army vs a shooting army

Name one shooting unit that suffers the same problem? Ill give you a hint, none of them. Because you can apply damage to the target before they even get close, and frankly the only armies that shooting armies find a problem is....... more shooting armies.

The chance that charge fails is far more common of a combat mechanic, a unit disengaging with 0 chance for punishment is hilariously stupid. It needlesly punishes all close combat units in the game. The tarpit strategies were created to remove shooting threats and deal with overly shooting armies. without it shooting armies are super dominant which means close combat armies and units like khorne and blood angels are punished horribly.

A simple fix would be to allow for more movement when charging or to reward the player charging apart from 'going first'. Bring back +1 attack on charge for infantry and biker units and the game will drastically change.

Or give a reverse overwatch for melee units except they hit at a higher rate than they normally do on retreating units and have an advancing move / sweeping advance. Except it would be for certain units like jump pack and heavy infantry. Some units would be excluded like Cataprachts, Wraithguard, dreadnoughts, and other 'massive' units. But Tartars and Howling banshees could sweeping advance.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

I get where you're coming from, and that tends to work out against balanced armies. It's the gunline armies and armies with efficient screens that really create the problem. If my charging unit managed to kill a squad of marines or tie up a leman russ for a turn, I can feel okay about the work that melee unit has done. But when all I did was kill ~50 points of guardsmen and then lose twice or thrice that to the firepower of the unit(s) they were screening.

Now, if my army happens to be pretty balanced, I might be able to clear out those screens before utilizing my delivery system (be it transports, psychic powers, or deepstrike) so that the unit I charge is more worthwhile. If I'm playing an army that strongly favors melee (most daemon armies, vanilla ork armies without an eye towards dakka, etc.), then there's a much better chance that screens will keep me from doing efficient damage.

I guess my point is that the penalty of not being able to shoot after falling back frequently doesn't come up when you're facing lists that happen to have the most tools for shooting up your units after the screen dies or falls back. And that's where the most frustrating fall back related moments come from. If my incubi bounce off of someone's tactical marines and they proceed to fall back so that their devastator buddies can shoot me, that stinks for me, but it doesn't sting as much as when I charge some fire warriors or guardsmen, barely do any damage to their army as a whole, and then get blasted away because that's what their army is good at.

What your describing is less of a CC mechanics issue and more an issue of a number of units being pointed to a completely different scale compaired to other units.
It's also not really helped by GW undervaluing just how valuable being able to create a wall of guardsmen or a no deepstrike footprint is. They also didn't seem to have taken into consideration the wieght of numbers as a levelling factor for invulnerable saves etc

Here's a food for thought - the necessity of fall back mechanism is primarilly to stop tarpitting, an action where you take a unit that can't effectively CC down the target and charge against it in order for the target to be stopped from doing anything fpr the remainder of the game. Prime example is a cultist blob of 20 against a dreadnought with base attack of 2, where it's mathematically impossible for the dread to kill the blob within 5 turns, all the while the little guys can't take down a single HP off the dread. CC wasn't an issue where a dedicated CC unit more than capable of wiping the floor with its target.

Now, where has fall back taken us? It empowers those units with large number of low costing multi model units more than ever, while crippling a unit's capacity to deal out damage over course of multiple turns.

I like the suggestions that it be easier to escape a unit such as a tank or a dreadnaught than a jump marine or a banshee. This is a perfect instance where Initiative values would come in, where a model with a high initiative is better at escaping / catching than a model with a low initiative. It would have been as simple as a D6+I, if the guys running roll higher they get away, if the other guys roll higher they inflict mortal wounds equal to the difference.

I think there are 3 aspects to this, which is:

1: if you turn your back it's likely to get stabbed.
2: if your enemy doesn't want you to go, they will give chase.
3: Then we have to address the fact that the unit you ran away from can be shot to bits by the enemy. I think that this can be solved by having a way to catch the fleeing unit - and so remain in combat, and prevent yourself being shot at.

so, having determined that point 2 will probably help balance point 3, we are left with 1 and 2: you have to have a chance of being punished/hurt for fleeing, and you shouldn't have a 100% success rate at disengaging.

Then we have to add that faster units are better at chasing/fleeing than slow ones.

so, we need to:

A: incorporate movement speed into the flee/chase scenario.
B: give the unit a chance to give chase
C: give the unit a chance to inflict damage as their opponents flee.

I think that the amount of damage a unit will take as it disengages, realistically, would be related to the units level of training. so leadership is probably the best statistic to test against. D6 + the maximum attacks statistic of an enemy model within 1". So if you're trying to escape a bezerker or a bloodthirster, it's more likely to get one or two of you than if you're walking away from an angry grot. if you're engaged in combat with 10 grots and a warboss, you use the warboss' attacks characteristic.

Once the test is done, move away as normal (you can advance whilst you do). The enemy models may then declare a charge on the unit which fled. if the unit advanced they may not fire overwatch (or shoot/charge at all this turn). If they don't advance, they can shoot but at -1 to hit (-2 for heavy weapons). a unit that flees may not charge.

so, I think this addresses the points: If you want to disengage, it's scarier against a unit/model with lots of attacks than a unit with 1 each. you have a chance to be killed as you go. You could be charged straight away, if you are too slow to escape. If you don't want to be shot, then charge them as they flee - but if you don't roll well enough, you'll be out in the open. Bikes / jump infantry are better at disengaging.

The only point not addressed is that fast units should be better at chasing the enemy down. But I don't see this as too much of an issue, as I don't want bikes & speedy units to be the kings of all combat.

I also think that perhaps we need the unit being fled from to have the option to move normally instead of charging. so perhaps have them allowed a 2D6" move, and if they engage the enemy then hooray for them. But I don't know.


I think the best Idea I have in here is the D6+highest attacks of an enemy in combat vs leadership when disengaging. makes CC monsters scary to run from.

In all of the above, I think that vehicles should be exempt. They are lumbering behemoths of steel, they aren't suited to quick responses. But they should also have the old ramming rules for pushing infantry aside.

 some bloke wrote:
I like the suggestions that it be easier to escape a unit such as a tank or a dreadnaught than a jump marine or a banshee. This is a perfect instance where Initiative values would come in, where a model with a high initiative is better at escaping / catching than a model with a low initiative. It would have been as simple as a D6+I, if the guys running roll higher they get away, if the other guys roll higher they inflict mortal wounds equal to the difference.

I think there are 3 aspects to this, which is:

1: if you turn your back it's likely to get stabbed.
2: if your enemy doesn't want you to go, they will give chase.
3: Then we have to address the fact that the unit you ran away from can be shot to bits by the enemy. I think that this can be solved by having a way to catch the fleeing unit - and so remain in combat, and prevent yourself being shot at.

so, having determined that point 2 will probably help balance point 3, we are left with 1 and 2: you have to have a chance of being punished/hurt for fleeing, and you shouldn't have a 100% success rate at disengaging.

Then we have to add that faster units are better at chasing/fleeing than slow ones.

so, we need to:

A: incorporate movement speed into the flee/chase scenario.
B: give the unit a chance to give chase
C: give the unit a chance to inflict damage as their opponents flee.

I think that the amount of damage a unit will take as it disengages, realistically, would be related to the units level of training. so leadership is probably the best statistic to test against. D6 + the maximum attacks statistic of an enemy model within 1". So if you're trying to escape a bezerker or a bloodthirster, it's more likely to get one or two of you than if you're walking away from an angry grot. if you're engaged in combat with 10 grots and a warboss, you use the warboss' attacks characteristic.

Once the test is done, move away as normal (you can advance whilst you do). The enemy models may then declare a charge on the unit which fled. if the unit advanced they may not fire overwatch (or shoot/charge at all this turn). If they don't advance, they can shoot but at -1 to hit (-2 for heavy weapons). a unit that flees may not charge.

so, I think this addresses the points: If you want to disengage, it's scarier against a unit/model with lots of attacks than a unit with 1 each. you have a chance to be killed as you go. You could be charged straight away, if you are too slow to escape. If you don't want to be shot, then charge them as they flee - but if you don't roll well enough, you'll be out in the open. Bikes / jump infantry are better at disengaging.

The only point not addressed is that fast units should be better at chasing the enemy down. But I don't see this as too much of an issue, as I don't want bikes & speedy units to be the kings of all combat.

I also think that perhaps we need the unit being fled from to have the option to move normally instead of charging. so perhaps have them allowed a 2D6" move, and if they engage the enemy then hooray for them. But I don't know.


I think the best Idea I have in here is the D6+highest attacks of an enemy in combat vs leadership when disengaging. makes CC monsters scary to run from.

In all of the above, I think that vehicles should be exempt. They are lumbering behemoths of steel, they aren't suited to quick responses. But they should also have the old ramming rules for pushing infantry aside.

This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

 skchsan wrote:
This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

Units which are fast are hard to catch. This method rewards models with high attacks by making them more likely to kill some models as they flee. It also rewards fast units by making them better at hit & run techniques - they are no better at catching fleeing models (it would be too complex to put in!).

So the models who are unrewarded are the slow units with a low number of attacks - can you point out which of these are dedicated assault units?

You want to be fast to get away from attackers. you want high attacks to punish people for trying to run. You want high leadership to get all your guys out unscathed. it all makes sense, at least to me.

 some bloke wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

Units which are fast are hard to catch. This method rewards models with high attacks by making them more likely to kill some models as they flee. It also rewards fast units by making them better at hit & run techniques - they are no better at catching fleeing models (it would be too complex to put in!).

So the models who are unrewarded are the slow units with a low number of attacks - can you point out which of these are dedicated assault units?

You want to be fast to get away from attackers. you want high attacks to punish people for trying to run. You want high leadership to get all your guys out unscathed. it all makes sense, at least to me.

Every unit that is not an aeldari, have M of 6" or less but comes with CC weapons as primary. The list is too long to list.

 skchsan wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

Units which are fast are hard to catch. This method rewards models with high attacks by making them more likely to kill some models as they flee. It also rewards fast units by making them better at hit & run techniques - they are no better at catching fleeing models (it would be too complex to put in!).

So the models who are unrewarded are the slow units with a low number of attacks - can you point out which of these are dedicated assault units?

You want to be fast to get away from attackers. you want high attacks to punish people for trying to run. You want high leadership to get all your guys out unscathed. it all makes sense, at least to me.

Every unit that is not an aeldari, have M of 6" or less but comes with CC weapons as primary. The list is too long to list.

ok, I see what you're saying that an average "trooper" for most armies is not going to have any real advantage in either fleeing or pursuing - but surely that is a good thing?

Let's go through some basic scenarios:

Unit A is the pursuer, Unit B is the Flee-er.

scenario 1: both units are "troopers" with 1 attack and a 6" move.
unit B moves away, and has to roll 1D6+1, compare to leadership and see if anyone dies. likely no-one dies.
Unit A has a 6" charge to make to get them back in range. They will be more likely than not to achieve this. Unit B can overwatch.
If Unit B chose to advance, then unit A needs a 6+D6" charge to catch them up - a much less likely prospect. But, unit B can't overwatch, or shoot next turn.

so how fast you run determines how successful you are to escape. makes sense.

Scenario 2: Unit A is a trooper, Unit B is fast
naturally, the fast unit is much more likely to get away. because it is fast. makes sense.

Scenario 3: Unit A is Fast, Unit B is a trooper.
As per scenario 1, as the pursuer gets no benefit from being fast. so if you really run from the enemy, they are less likely to catch you. makes sense, but not so much when bikes are not quicker to catch you than troops.

Scenario 4: Unit A is a CC monster with 6 attacks each, unit B is a trooper.
unit B is likely to take casualties disengaging. if unit B doesn't run fast enough, he will be caught. Makes sense.

Scenario 5: Unit A is a CC monster, Unit B is a fast unit.
Unit B is likely to take casualties as he disengages. Unit A is not likely to catch him once he does.

so we can conclude that:
you will take casualties if you disengage from units with high attacks
you will probably get caught if you don't advance when disengaging, unless you are already fast
if a unit with average leadership disengages from a unit with low attacks, it can usually do so safely.

I don't see this causing people to run all fast units for CC purposes unless they are good at CC as well. You still have to fight, after all!

Plaguebearers literally only have CC as a way of hurting enemy units.

5" move.

 skchsan wrote:
Here's a food for thought - the necessity of fall back mechanism is primarilly to stop tarpitting, an action where you take a unit that can't effectively CC down the target and charge against it in order for the target to be stopped from doing anything fpr the remainder of the game. Prime example is a cultist blob of 20 against a dreadnought with base attack of 2, where it's mathematically impossible for the dread to kill the blob within 5 turns, all the while the little guys can't take down a single HP off the dread. CC wasn't an issue where a dedicated CC unit more than capable of wiping the floor with its target.

Now, where has fall back taken us? It empowers those units with large number of low costing multi model units more than ever, while crippling a unit's capacity to deal out damage over course of multiple turns.

1. If the Cultists really managed to get that close, they deserve to tarpit.
2. Dreads have had 4 attacks since either 6th or 7th, when GW realized only 2-3 attacks is complete and utter garbage.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plaguebearers literally only have CC as a way of hurting enemy units.

5" move.

how many attacks do they have?

their low movement is only a problem if they want to get out of combat in my system. chasing after people is a charge roll, and as such is unaffected by their movement characteristic.

People escaping will have to roll D6 + the highest attacks characteristic of the enemy models engaged in combat (IE who could swing without piling in), which would be the unit champion. if they only have 1 attack each, then I have to speculate that they are not particularly good as dedicated CC units.

Bear in mind that the current system allows people to walk away from your plaguebearers with no penalty, and you don't get to attack again unless you survive being shot, then survive the overwatch, then make the charge roll again, in your next turn. In my system, you might catch them again in their turn, avoid being shot at, and get to attack in their turn but having charged. IE running away badly and getting caught for your troubles ends worse for you than just standing and fighting. Makes sense.

so in my suggestion, your plague bearers are more likely to stay in combat and killing things than in the current system.

Note: to get units safely out of CC you will have to put other units into CC to tie them up and keep them from pursuing. units fleeing might still take casualties, but they won't be chased.

I am considering that the D6 + attacks will need a +2 modifier to it, as it's a little feeble at the moment unless there's a real CC monster on the field.

 some bloke wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plaguebearers literally only have CC as a way of hurting enemy units.

5" move.

how many attacks do they have?

their low movement is only a problem if they want to get out of combat in my system. chasing after people is a charge roll, and as such is unaffected by their movement characteristic.

People escaping will have to roll D6 + the highest attacks characteristic of the enemy models engaged in combat (IE who could swing without piling in), which would be the unit champion. if they only have 1 attack each, then I have to speculate that they are not particularly good as dedicated CC units.

Bear in mind that the current system allows people to walk away from your plaguebearers with no penalty, and you don't get to attack again unless you survive being shot, then survive the overwatch, then make the charge roll again, in your next turn. In my system, you might catch them again in their turn, avoid being shot at, and get to attack in their turn but having charged. IE running away badly and getting caught for your troubles ends worse for you than just standing and fighting. Makes sense.

so in my suggestion, your plague bearers are more likely to stay in combat and killing things than in the current system.

Note: to get units safely out of CC you will have to put other units into CC to tie them up and keep them from pursuing. units fleeing might still take casualties, but they won't be chased.

I am considering that the D6 + attacks will need a +2 modifier to it, as it's a little feeble at the moment unless there's a real CC monster on the field.

I'm sure many of us here agree wih you conceptually, that fast units should be obviously be faster than slow units. But within the given rulesets we have, M characteristic is a hard stat to utilize for balanced rule implementation.

This would mean that any forms of bike with 12"+ movement will always be able to tarpit themselves into slower units (unless youre eldar with 7" M base). No smart player will ever fall back against someone with +6" move against them - which results, again, in tarpitting. In order for your proposal to work in a balanced manner, we need to revisit the M characteristic and its value, and potentially adjust M across the entire game. It would be fine if we were rewriting the rulebook, but this is impossible to implement in the current ruleset.

Fall back system is good - we just need to remove the associated penalty aginst the unit being disengaged from.

 skchsan wrote:
Here's a food for thought - the necessity of fall back mechanism is primarilly to stop tarpitting, an action where you take a unit that can't effectively CC down the target and charge against it in order for the target to be stopped from doing anything fpr the remainder of the game. Prime example is a cultist blob of 20 against a dreadnought with base attack of 2, where it's mathematically impossible for the dread to kill the blob within 5 turns, all the while the little guys can't take down a single HP off the dread. CC wasn't an issue where a dedicated CC unit more than capable of wiping the floor with its target.

Now, where has fall back taken us? It empowers those units with large number of low costing multi model units more than ever, while crippling a unit's capacity to deal out damage over course of multiple turns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Fall back system is good - we just need to remove the associated penalty aginst the unit being disengaged from.

These. People have suggested lots of neat ways to inflict wounds on units as they fall back or to sometimes not allow a unit to fall back, but neither of those results really addresses the actual problem with falling back.

If falling back is a problem and you implement a solution that only stops falling back some of the time, then you're still allowing the problem to persist; just less consistently.

If a shooty unit is engaged with a stabby unit, then they generally have no reason to stay in that location. Unless the shooty unit is durable enough to tarpit the melee unit through my opponent's turn, I will attempt to fall back with it regardless of the damage it sustains 100% of the time. At that point, any extra wounds are just the cost of doing damage.

If we identify the core issue we want to fix as, "Falling back leaves melee units exposed to shooting with no real counterplay," then the solution should be to either not leave them exposed to shooting or to introduce some sort of counterplay. Rolling dice to see if they don't fall back in the first place isn't really counterplay, and neither is rolling a bunch of dice to kill a couple extra fleeing models.

How about falling back is movement minus 1d6. You can move this regardless of whether you make it out of combat. The fight phase happens as per normal if any models still within 1" except the ones falling back forfeit their attack.

Would work nicely alongside allowing shooting into combat where all misses count as hits to your own units in the combat.

If you can prevent a unit from falling back, that is the counterplay to being left exposed.

Whilst I agree that disengaging from a unit for free and then freely shooting at it with the rest of your army is too powerful at the moment, by simply making it not a given that you'll walk away, you largely eliminate that tactic.

In my proposal, you have to try and get away - you might get hurt if you're leaving a powerful unit, and you might then be charged again. It makes it difficult for an "average" (M6 Ld7) to get away from combat without a decent advance roll.

Yes, I think that if you engage a slow unit wit ha fast unit, it is a viable tactic to break out of combat and high-tail it out of there whilst the artillery shells come whistling down. being able to flee combat and leave the enemy exposed should be a part of the game - but you should have to be lucky or using the right units to do so reliably. an average unit should have a reasonable chance of catching an average unit. it should be difficult to catch a fast unit, and it should be hard to escape unscathed from a unit with lots of attacks.


In short: There should be a counterplay to falling back and shooting everything at he stranded unit, but it shouldn't be something gifted for free, that works every time.

My one compliant about including movement stats into any fall back mechanics is that it leads yo some horrific power creep for quick units, fly keyword and will see standard infantry basically become redundant after having provided as much cheap CP as they can. You already have units in the game that can pull of 24 inch or more charges reliable. Simply put the tables arn't big enough to enable the game to play the way you are describing.

Ice_can wrote:
My one compliant about including movement stats into any fall back mechanics is that it leads yo some horrific power creep for quick units, fly keyword and will see standard infantry basically become redundant after having provided as much cheap CP as they can. You already have units in the game that can pull of 24 inch or more charges reliable. Simply put the tables arn't big enough to enable the game to play the way you are describing.

I do agree that this will render fast units as difficult to tie up in combat. and again, I do think that it's reasonable. The main army which can't easily escape combat is the guard - who have enough units on the field to accept the casualties, and if the unit leaving advances, they still get 6+D6" of movement to get away - which is fairly reliable. But fast units should be difficult to catch.

If I'm honest, the biggest issue is the sheer distance foot units can cover nowadays, and biker units with 14" move and 12" charge is ridiculous. I would prefer to rewrite charges to reduce distance, then instigate my suggestion for chasing units which try to leave combat. it makes it harder to get into combat, but much more rewarding once you do, as they can't just walk away again.

I'd want charges to be related to movement speed. perhaps a simple cap on charge distance. It used to work having a 6" charge, for everything, back in the day. Maybe just have a "(C)harge" statistic, with the models charge move on it, and have D6+C for charge distances. This way firewarriors would have C1 and would be decidedly "meh" at charging, and bezerkers would be much better with, say, C4. But this is a discussion for another thread, which I'll probably go and start now.

I still think the best counterplay for units walking away and leaving you open to being shot at is to have a chance to stop them from doing so. Stop "I'll just be over here, watching you get shot" from having a 100% success rate. You tried to leave combat, you failed to leave combat, change your turn plan.

 some bloke wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
My one compliant about including movement stats into any fall back mechanics is that it leads yo some horrific power creep for quick units, fly keyword and will see standard infantry basically become redundant after having provided as much cheap CP as they can. You already have units in the game that can pull of 24 inch or more charges reliable. Simply put the tables arn't big enough to enable the game to play the way you are describing.

I do agree that this will render fast units as difficult to tie up in combat. and again, I do think that it's reasonable. The main army which can't easily escape combat is the guard - who have enough units on the field to accept the casualties, and if the unit leaving advances, they still get 6+D6" of movement to get away - which is fairly reliable. But fast units should be difficult to catch.

If I'm honest, the biggest issue is the sheer distance foot units can cover nowadays, and biker units with 14" move and 12" charge is ridiculous. I would prefer to rewrite charges to reduce distance, then instigate my suggestion for chasing units which try to leave combat. it makes it harder to get into combat, but much more rewarding once you do, as they can't just walk away again.

I'd want charges to be related to movement speed. perhaps a simple cap on charge distance. It used to work having a 6" charge, for everything, back in the day. Maybe just have a "(C)harge" statistic, with the models charge move on it, and have D6+C for charge distances. This way firewarriors would have C1 and would be decidedly "meh" at charging, and bezerkers would be much better with, say, C4. But this is a discussion for another thread, which I'll probably go and start now.

I still think the best counterplay for units walking away and leaving you open to being shot at is to have a chance to stop them from doing so. Stop "I'll just be over here, watching you get shot" from having a 100% success rate. You tried to leave combat, you failed to leave combat, change your turn plan.

I'm not opppsed to say jetpack/jumppacks or teleporting units being hard to catch in CC but really a bike doesn't do a 180 degree turn easily and if your doing that you definitely arn't fighting back.

Ok that's an Idea, what about instead of punishing running away the unit in combat has to forgo it's CC attacks in the preceding Fight phase to be able to fallback?

I know it still doesn't help CC units from getting blased if they are hang out to dry but really short of rescaling 40k removing fallback as a mechanic just makes any unit with turn 1 charges King off all and makes screening even more mandatory and will reduce list variations even more.

I have to agree that bikers making a quick exit is not really that realistic, but then again they also shouldn't stop as soon as they make contact - realistically, if a bike hits a unit it should go straight through and inflict some hits. A space marine on a motorbike should be a lot less effective when mired in combat than one on foot - it should be easier to hit, and nowhere near as good at dishing out attacks. and lets not even go into how easily one could put a plasma pistol to the head of a marine jammed into the sidecar of an attack bike... not all the mechanics will reflect "reality" as well as others. A biker unit can go from full speed in one direction to full speed in the other in the space of a single turn - they can charge in any direction. They also go from moving 14" + 6" advance + 12" charge (ork bikers near a warboss rolling very well) + 3" pile in, for a total of 35" of movement (!!) to a standstill without any impact on the unit they stopped in front of. The game simplifies these things so that everything flows smoothly. So yes, in theory a unit on bikes won't make as quick a getaway as a unit which can run really fast or fly, but would still be quicker than a unit on foot (as you could easily barge your way out on a bike). But to keep everything flowing smoothly, I think to A: allow models to move away as fast as they move, and B:make more co-ordinated squads (higher leadership) less likely to take casualties by doing so is the best way to cover this.

I like the idea that you either fight or flee, not both, and I also like the idea that you should be able to chase a unit if it does flee.

I also also like the idea that this would open up for more rules in the future as armies are re-released, like chaos taking human shields if the enemy flees instead of pursuing, or guard being able to "hit the deck" to allow a unit to be shot, but be auto-hit in CC with no attacks back (so better hope you kill them!). That sort of thing.

I intensely dislike the idea that a unit should still be able to walk away from combat, even with a parting volley of CC hits, and the unit left behind just stands there to be shot to bits. I also dislike the idea that the unit left behind gets a bonus like -1 to be hit "just to be fair".

If nothing else comes of this, I want there to be a chance that the unit doesn't get away. that's my biggest thing.

How about every unit left disengaged from fall back immedietly gets to consolidate? This could tie up new units and start a chain reaction of fall backs

Gitdakka wrote:
How about every unit left disengaged from fall back immedietly gets to consolidate? This could tie up new units and start a chain reaction of fall backs

This is potentially good implementation, but I think it can be exploited by few armies with easy access to 'still act normal after falling back'.

Under your porposal, it would make the player think twice before falling back, and if it's potentially more detrimental to do so, they would choose to remain in combat - at which time, come the opposing player's turn, will simply 'fall back' forward towards the enemy units and bring forth the exact scenario you are trying to achieve when fall back occurs.

P.S. - GW should rename 'fall back' to "disengage", as you're not limited to literally falling back towards the rear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
...but really a bike doesn't do a 180 degree turn easily and if your doing that you definitely arn't fighting back.

Batman would beg to differ.

Basically you have 3 options:

a) make a mechanic that can deny fall back (basically a roll to see if you can fall back)

b) an extra move after a fall back (this is a semi pile in for the melee unit after someone falls back)

c) penalties for other units (this in the form of a reverse over watch, so to hit the unit that was disengaged from requires unmodified 6's)


These 3 would be the main ways of dealing with the problem that CC has with fall back.

The first one sounds nice, until you realise that what wyches do is this mechanic, and it's ok in a sense but for other units with "stay here" mechanics (fiends of slaneesh,Skarbrand ect.) this would make them that more valuable.

The second move either falls into M+D6 vs 2D6, either of which is either too unreliable (a M15 unit would always run from anything) or too unpredictable (2D6 is a nightmare for everyone cause there is no reliability), this could work but would need to be extra careful in how it would be implemented.

Ironically enough, the third option is the fairest and probably the most logical one out of all of them. We know that the unit that disengaged is not the problem, rather it is the army of firepower behind that unit that is the problem. Tarpitting last edition either went with large squads denying a single unit the chance to do anything, or a single unit biding their time in CC to not be shot at. This one would be the compromise, as it still has fall back mechanic in it's current state as a way to address tarpitting, while at the same time addresses the shooting problem by making the target significantly harder to do damage to, mind you it is not impossible, but it does mean they have a shield in the form of being harder to hit

mchammadad wrote:
Basically you have 3 options:

a) make a mechanic that can deny fall back (basically a roll to see if you can fall back)

b) an extra move after a fall back (this is a semi pile in for the melee unit after someone falls back)

c) penalties for other units (this in the form of a reverse over watch, so to hit the unit that was disengaged from requires unmodified 6's)


These 3 would be the main ways of dealing with the problem that CC has with fall back.

The first one sounds nice, until you realise that what wyches do is this mechanic, and it's ok in a sense but for other units with "stay here" mechanics (fiends of slaneesh,Skarbrand ect.) this would make them that more valuable.

The second move either falls into M+D6 vs 2D6, either of which is either too unreliable (a M15 unit would always run from anything) or too unpredictable (2D6 is a nightmare for everyone cause there is no reliability), this could work but would need to be extra careful in how it would be implemented.

Ironically enough, the third option is the fairest and probably the most logical one out of all of them. We know that the unit that disengaged is not the problem, rather it is the army of firepower behind that unit that is the problem. Tarpitting last edition either went with large squads denying a single unit the chance to do anything, or a single unit biding their time in CC to not be shot at. This one would be the compromise, as it still has fall back mechanic in it's current state as a way to address tarpitting, while at the same time addresses the shooting problem by making the target significantly harder to do damage to, mind you it is not impossible, but it does mean they have a shield in the form of being harder to hit

Needing 6's to hit is way too much of a bonus given the number of units that can pull off reliable turn 1 charges. It can probably be a -1 to hit modifier and that's probably at most.
Also how would you have such a rule interact with things like Ultramarines or fly or Super heavies who can all fall back and shoot.

Personally I would do the following

Friendly Fire
When shooting at a unit that was within 1 inch of a friendly unit at the begining of the preceding movement phade a -1 to hit modifier applies.

Change the Ultramines chapter tactic to if a unit with this tactic falls back it may shoot at the unit it falls back from, additionally Ultramarines units add 1 to hit rolls when shooting at a unit that was within 1 inch of a friendly Ultramines unit at the start of the preceding movement phase.

I don't like the idea that a unit which was disengaged from is really difficult to shoot at afterwards. I much prefer the idea that you can try, and fail, to disengage, or try and succeed, and that this will dictate whether or not the unit can be shot.

I agree that including a models movement in any fall back or pile in move will result in the fast units either being inescapable or uncatchable. The game will turn into who-can-bring-the-fastest-close-combat-units and as soon as you're in combat with them, you're stuck.

I think that units disengaging should be doing so with random movement, and should have a number of D6 relating to their movement speed:
0-6" : D6
7-12": 2D6
13"+: 3D6

which is a pathetic distance for most units, but if people really want to get away then they will have to advance, and then cannot shoot or charge. But, there's no reliability in being fast, so if you decide not to advance, then roll a 3 on 2D6, you made a bad decision (which should be allowed in games!)

Alternatively, they could have M-D6", or just M if they decide to advance, when disengaging. So you get a fairly reliable method for faster units, and minimise rolling for units which really want to get away. then make sure that there are very few units which can disengage and then charge. So the purpose is to get a few shots off before they crash into your lines again.

 some bloke wrote:
I don't like the idea that a unit which was disengaged from is really difficult to shoot at afterwards. I much prefer the idea that you can try, and fail, to disengage, or try and succeed, and that this will dictate whether or not the unit can be shot.

I agree that including a models movement in any fall back or pile in move will result in the fast units either being inescapable or uncatchable. The game will turn into who-can-bring-the-fastest-close-combat-units and as soon as you're in combat with them, you're stuck.

I think that units disengaging should be doing so with random movement, and should have a number of D6 relating to their movement speed:
0-6" : D6
7-12": 2D6
13"+: 3D6

which is a pathetic distance for most units, but if people really want to get away then they will have to advance, and then cannot shoot or charge. But, there's no reliability in being fast, so if you decide not to advance, then roll a 3 on 2D6, you made a bad decision (which should be allowed in games!)

Alternatively, they could have M-D6", or just M if they decide to advance, when disengaging. So you get a fairly reliable method for faster units, and minimise rolling for units which really want to get away. then make sure that there are very few units which can disengage and then charge. So the purpose is to get a few shots off before they crash into your lines again.

The -1 to hit is supposed to represent the difficulty in shooting at the enemy while not hitting your own comrades.
It's called danger close fire for a reason, but I'm not sure adding in a 1's hit your own dudes is a good mechnic as it's not really going to stop some one leveling your CC unit with a baneblade because they might hit their 4 remaining guardsmen.

The other problem with adding in a can't leave combat mechanic is how does it interact with flyers, Vehicals, Monsters.
A guardsmen isn't exactly going to slow down Magnus, riptide if they decide to leave combat.

Their is so many problems that come out of it, it was a good concept but doesn't work in 8th as the base rules make some assumptions that this mechanic would break.

One, not quite fully formed, thought is that you could make the decision up front in the charge phase instead.
Something like, charge declared, make a choice of: receive or withdraw.
If you receive you fire overwatch and get to fight in the fight phase normally, but cannot fall back next turn. (so your guys stand and fight and are embroiled in the melee)
If you withdraw you do not fire overwatch, get to fight with a penalty of -1 to hit, and can fall back in the next turn. (your guys grab their stuff and prepare to run, and get a few half aimed swipes in as they do so)
Might have to make some consideration for Vehicles and Monsters against infantry targets.

I considered allowing the unit to move away in the fight phase, but they'd still get caught by pile in/consolidate most of the time, and you'd almost never get away from berserkers (but then again, maybe you shouldn't get away from berserkers if you're careless enough to let them charge you!) but that left open the ease of using pile in/consolidate to engage other units without them getting a charge reaction too easily.

Really Melee just isn't deadly enough, and fall back is too rewarding. I don't think my thought here fixes it, though maybe makes it more cinematic at the very least.

Rather than melee isn't being deadly enough, it's just that you need to really dedicate your army to assaults now. More often than not, it's point inefficient to focus on melee.

There are plenty manuevers that prevent fall backs (pincer sandwich, triangle lock, coherency lock, titan bike wrap, etc), but the ultimate downfall is the 8th ed casualty removal (because the owning player get to choose which model gets removed, they can remove the specific models that are locking in the unit and preventing from falling back). In order to successfully pull off moves that prevent fall back, you either have to overtrade or pull your punches.

Melee's offensive capabilities being buffed will result in unit wipes unless you purposely pull punches, which again will leave melee units no different than how it is when they get disengaged on.

Ice_can wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Basically you have 3 options:

a) make a mechanic that can deny fall back (basically a roll to see if you can fall back)

b) an extra move after a fall back (this is a semi pile in for the melee unit after someone falls back)

c) penalties for other units (this in the form of a reverse over watch, so to hit the unit that was disengaged from requires unmodified 6's)


These 3 would be the main ways of dealing with the problem that CC has with fall back.

The first one sounds nice, until you realise that what wyches do is this mechanic, and it's ok in a sense but for other units with "stay here" mechanics (fiends of slaneesh,Skarbrand ect.) this would make them that more valuable.

The second move either falls into M+D6 vs 2D6, either of which is either too unreliable (a M15 unit would always run from anything) or too unpredictable (2D6 is a nightmare for everyone cause there is no reliability), this could work but would need to be extra careful in how it would be implemented.

Ironically enough, the third option is the fairest and probably the most logical one out of all of them. We know that the unit that disengaged is not the problem, rather it is the army of firepower behind that unit that is the problem. Tarpitting last edition either went with large squads denying a single unit the chance to do anything, or a single unit biding their time in CC to not be shot at. This one would be the compromise, as it still has fall back mechanic in it's current state as a way to address tarpitting, while at the same time addresses the shooting problem by making the target significantly harder to do damage to, mind you it is not impossible, but it does mean they have a shield in the form of being harder to hit

Needing 6's to hit is way too much of a bonus given the number of units that can pull off reliable turn 1 charges. It can probably be a -1 to hit modifier and that's probably at most.
Also how would you have such a rule interact with things like Ultramarines or fly or Super heavies who can all fall back and shoot.

Personally I would do the following

Friendly Fire
When shooting at a unit that was within 1 inch of a friendly unit at the begining of the preceding movement phade a -1 to hit modifier applies.

Change the Ultramines chapter tactic to if a unit with this tactic falls back it may shoot at the unit it falls back from, additionally Ultramarines units add 1 to hit rolls when shooting at a unit that was within 1 inch of a friendly Ultramines unit at the start of the preceding movement phase.

One big problem with this, which is discussed many times in the forums. a -1 to hit is not proportionate across all armies.

a -1 on a 2+ unit is much different than a -1 on a 5+ unit. Hense the flat to hit modifier. Hell it doesn't have to be 6's, it could be 5+ instead. Having everyone reduced to the same to hit roll means that no one can complain when someone can just ignore the -1 to hit because of their base stats.

The change is to address mass firepower shooting at targets that are fallen back from. Which is mostly going to be one or two units that had to go through a gauntlet to get into melee.


Also, with a few exceptions. Most turn 1 charges are limited to about a dozen things. And most of them only applying to one unit in particular (swarmlord,Calvary slaneesh,Ork/grey knight psycher,alpha legion bezerkers) units with high movement don't usually fall into this category because it is not as reliable, and only really applies to situational maps

You must remember that deep strike is out of the picture because you can't use it turn 1.

And a second note. Screening units are actually really good at denying melee, shooting not so much

Don't make friendly fire a -1 to hit. Make it so any roll of 1 to hit is a successful hit on your own friendly unit in the combat.

With re-roll 1's to hit all over the place. This would be about as useful as the Venezuelan dollar (the petro)

Personally...

Go back to what WHFB 3rd had, the "free hack"

you can freely withdraw from combat, each enemy model gets to make a single attack, which automatically hits, with whatever weapon they are carrying - resolve the wounds and damage as usual.

result:

Elite unit withdraws from chaff, likely unharmed in any significant way, unless seriously out numbered when it should be dangerous
chaff withdraws from Elite unit, likely takes significant casualties, unless the elite unit was pretty small.

also has the advantage its quick and easy to resolve, and pretty predictable.

it also allows you to sacrifice one unit in combat to allow others to withdraw safely if you only allow the free hack when no one would be left in combat.

How about this scenario(s) for falling back:

1. Unit declare it will fall back.

2. Opponent get to do reverse-overwatch on them;
a). Either all eligible enemies attack and score a hit on a 6+, just like overwatch, or,
b). All eligible enemies scores a single auto-hit with their weapon of choice (kinda bad as no special rules are applied here, like extra damage or rending on 6's).

3. Then the falling back unit need to see if it get away;
a). Either roll 2D6 and try to beat the highest move characteristic of the engaged enemies (would feel like a reverse charge), or,
b). Compare units movements, if the fleeing unit is lower it need to beat the difference on a D6 (eg; a Marines unit (M6) try to escape from Genestealers (M8), they need to roll a 3+ to escape). No difference or a difference in the advantage of the fleeing unit mean it auto-escape.

4. If successful, regular fall back move can be done (or can use the 2D6 result for move distance from step 3).

You can add a rule that Vehicules and/or Monsters auto-pass step 3 versus Infantry if you feel it's needed too!

 Skywave wrote:
How about this scenario(s) for falling back:

1. Unit declare it will fall back.

2. Opponent get to do reverse-overwatch on them;
a). Either all eligible enemies attack and score a hit on a 6+, just like overwatch, or,
b). All eligible enemies scores a single auto-hit with their weapon of choice (kinda bad as no special rules are applied here, like extra damage or rending on 6's).

3. Then the falling back unit need to see if it get away;
a). Either roll 2D6 and try to beat the highest move characteristic of the engaged enemies (would feel like a reverse charge), or,
b). Compare units movements, if the fleeing unit is lower it need to beat the difference on a D6 (eg; a Marines unit (M6) try to escape from Genestealers (M8), they need to roll a 3+ to escape). No difference or a difference in the advantage of the fleeing unit mean it auto-escape.

4. If successful, regular fall back move can be done (or can use the 2D6 result for move distance from step 3).

You can add a rule that Vehicules and/or Monsters auto-pass step 3 versus Infantry if you feel it's needed too!

Step three is where this breaks for me.
You can try running from my riptide but its move is 12, Y'varha is 14 inches you need a base move of 9 and a 6 to even contemplate running away from it.
Knights are thr same, infantry squads would never be able to run from them, same with bikes, even if you have a jump pack when realistically jump troops could just time a jump and not be their for bikers to hit, jetbikes seem even more broken move of 16 that's bonkers broken in combination with section 3.

Well how do you think infantry could outrun a jetbike anyway?

While your troops cannot escape in some situation, it still prevent shooting to and from the unit engaged. It can be good on both side, you cannot escape from a Knight and shoot him down, but at least he himself will not shoot you and is stuck fighting your guys unless he himself want to disengage (can they fall back and shoot? Not sure about that one).

What you could do though is that if you have multiple units engaged, as long as one remain in combat the other can escape automatically (still getting hit though), so you can send help in combat to let another unit escape.

Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Except that that's the only order they get, AND they have to have moved.

So your Cadian Lascannon hits on a 5, no rerolls, instead of 4s, full reroll.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Except that that's the only order they get, AND they have to have moved.

So your Cadian Lascannon hits on a 5, no rerolls, instead of 4s, full reroll.

Laurels of command, because more cheese is the Way

Ice_can wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Except that that's the only order they get, AND they have to have moved.

So your Cadian Lascannon hits on a 5, no rerolls, instead of 4s, full reroll.

Laurels of command, because more cheese is the Way

Okay. So 5s rerolling 1s, not 4s rerolling.

Notably worse. And you have to roll a 4+.

Bharring wrote:


I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

I still don't see how either of those would really improve the game. Reverse overwatch is like a spiteful kick in the rear as the enemy runs away. Killing a couple extra guardsmen before the russes open fire on you isn't likely to impact the game, but taking the time to resolve it will slow the game down a little. If falling back is to be considered a problem, then a run-away test doesn't fix the problem; it just makes the problem show up less often. In either case, you're not convincing the squad of guardsmen to stick around and get wailed on by some berzerkers, and you're not providing interesting choices to either player. Firewarriors will always try to leave combat with Death Company. The choice they're given is trying to run away and possibly failing/taking some wounds so that their friends can erase the Death Company in the shooting phase VS not trying to get away and simply being destroyed in their own fight phase without having shot up the Death Company at all.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how either of those approaches would really improve the game.

And to play daemon's advocate, the "single auto-hit" version of the reverse overwatch mechanic has the downside of strongly favoring models with a a low quantity of high quality attacks versus models with lots of low-quality attacks. A guardsman with a power fist, of all things, makes better use of such a mechanic than Leltih Hesperax or an archoflagellant. The whole "make a bunch of attacks that hit on 6's" approach does a better job of sidestepping such weirdness, although it will also result in a bunch of extra dice rolling for very little effect. Like most overwatch.

Doing anything to the unit running away is not resolving the problem.

To resolve the problem is to give a penalty to those whom want to capitalize on the fall back, namely the army.

Giving a modifier penalty doesn't effect everyone equally, so the only way is to make a flat penalty that all armies have to follow, regardless of their superior or inferior skills.

hense, the modifer of a flat to hit to units that had been fallen back from in combat.

I suggested before that this could be a 6's to hit the unit. But people were saying it was too much, well then how about 5+? or maybe even 4+? half a chance at hitting the unit is much better than the current system.

Although the 5+ is sounding like the more sensible option. Also, this could be an unmodified to hit roll, so modifiers and such could not apply.


This would solve the problem of the army wide shooting at the target. Cause the unit that fell back doesn't need anymore punishing, it really can't do much anyway.

mchammadad wrote:
Doing anything to the unit running away is not resolving the problem.

Agreed.

To resolve the problem is to give a penalty to those whom want to capitalize on the fall back, namely the army.

Giving a modifier penalty doesn't effect everyone equally, so the only way is to make a flat penalty that all armies have to follow, regardless of their superior or inferior skills.

hense, the modifer of a flat to hit to units that had been fallen back from in combat.

I suggested before that this could be a 6's to hit the unit. But people were saying it was too much, well then how about 5+? or maybe even 4+? half a chance at hitting the unit is much better than the current system.

Although the 5+ is sounding like the more sensible option. Also, this could be an unmodified to hit roll, so modifiers and such could not apply.


This would solve the problem of the army wide shooting at the target. Cause the unit that fell back doesn't need anymore punishing, it really can't do much anyway.

I'm not sure that this is quite the right solution though. You run into weird situations where units that would normally hit you on 6s due to various to -hit penalties (Alaitoc's Fieldcraft + Lightning Fast Reflexes versus guard for instance) are suddenly hitting you BETTER because a unit fell back from you. And hitting on 5s would actually mean that orks or BS4+ heavy weapons that moved before shooting would take no penalty against you. I like the general direction you're going, but I feel like a flat to-hit number might not hold up very well under scrutiny.

What about simply preventing units from shooting the disengaged unit at all unless they're within a certain distance? 6", for instance. So my sisters repentia or whatever charge a squad of guardsmen. The guardsmen fall back and thus can't shoot (without the use of orders). Normally, those repentia would be taking shots from every multilaser, lasgun, and stray heavy stubber anywhere remotely close to them, but making them untargetable except by guard units within 6" means that they're only going to be subject to a fraction of that firepower. Plus, it provides the guard player with the choice of keeping his distance or moving towards the repentia to shoot them before they charge something again.

This also creates interesting positioning choices. You don't want to clump all of your units together where they'll be charged en masse because then you'll have fewer guns available to shoot the repentia after falling back, but you also want to keep your units in position to actually shoot the repentia.

Fluff-wise, the idea is that the same chaotic tangle of melee that makes units within 1" of friendlies untargetable is still making the guard reluctant to open fire. You have to get close where you can line up your shots and be more certain of your targets to shoot at the chain-claymore-wielding warriors that your guardsmen pals are still actively trying to get away from.

Wyldhunt wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Doing anything to the unit running away is not resolving the problem.

Agreed.

To resolve the problem is to give a penalty to those whom want to capitalize on the fall back, namely the army.

Giving a modifier penalty doesn't effect everyone equally, so the only way is to make a flat penalty that all armies have to follow, regardless of their superior or inferior skills.

hense, the modifer of a flat to hit to units that had been fallen back from in combat.

I suggested before that this could be a 6's to hit the unit. But people were saying it was too much, well then how about 5+? or maybe even 4+? half a chance at hitting the unit is much better than the current system.

Although the 5+ is sounding like the more sensible option. Also, this could be an unmodified to hit roll, so modifiers and such could not apply.


This would solve the problem of the army wide shooting at the target. Cause the unit that fell back doesn't need anymore punishing, it really can't do much anyway.

I'm not sure that this is quite the right solution though. You run into weird situations where units that would normally hit you on 6s due to various to -hit penalties (Alaitoc's Fieldcraft + Lightning Fast Reflexes versus guard for instance) are suddenly hitting you BETTER because a unit fell back from you. And hitting on 5s would actually mean that orks or BS4+ heavy weapons that moved before shooting would take no penalty against you. I like the general direction you're going, but I feel like a flat to-hit number might not hold up very well under scrutiny.

What about simply preventing units from shooting the disengaged unit at all unless they're within a certain distance? 6", for instance. So my sisters repentia or whatever charge a squad of guardsmen. The guardsmen fall back and thus can't shoot (without the use of orders). Normally, those repentia would be taking shots from every multilaser, lasgun, and stray heavy stubber anywhere remotely close to them, but making them untargetable except by guard units within 6" means that they're only going to be subject to a fraction of that firepower. Plus, it provides the guard player with the choice of keeping his distance or moving towards the repentia to shoot them before they charge something again.

This also creates interesting positioning choices. You don't want to clump all of your units together where they'll be charged en masse because then you'll have fewer guns available to shoot the repentia after falling back, but you also want to keep your units in position to actually shoot the repentia.

Fluff-wise, the idea is that the same chaotic tangle of melee that makes units within 1" of friendlies untargetable is still making the guard reluctant to open fire. You have to get close where you can line up your shots and be more certain of your targets to shoot at the chain-claymore-wielding warriors that your guardsmen pals are still actively trying to get away from.

This actually sounds brilliant. 6" Sounds like a nice rule to use. It stops people from spamming long range firepower on the unit and actually makes your opponent think twice about making his units stay close to your units. It's a high risk/reward system

That actually sounds like a good idea

I actually like that idea listed.

So I wanna recap my favorite ideas with one of my suggestions and ideas for the, well, ideas.
1. If you fall back, the opposing enemy unit gets to swing at you. You're hit on a 6+ regardless of modifiers (mostly to help protect our Power Fist dudes).
2. The unit that was fled from cannot be shot at unless you're within 9". I'm open to what this number should be. 9" seems like a number GW likes to use though.
3. If you have the Fly keyword, you suffer a -1 to shoot in addition to any other penalties you might received from moving.

How does that overall sound?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I actually like that idea listed.

So I wanna recap my favorite ideas with one of my suggestions and ideas for the, well, ideas.
1. If you fall back, the opposing enemy unit gets to swing at you. You're hit on a 6+ regardless of modifiers (mostly to help protect our Power Fist dudes).
2. The unit that was fled from cannot be shot at unless you're within 9". I'm open to what this number should be. 9" seems like a number GW likes to use though.
3. If you have the Fly keyword, you suffer a -1 to shoot in addition to any other penalties you might received from moving.

How does that overall sound?

#1 i would ditch if your using #2 cause #2 fixes the problem people would be facing.

Otherwise, these 2 things would be just fine.

Idea 2 and 3 would work just great. 1 is unnecessary as the unit in question won't need to fight the unit that fell back, cause they already had been punished enough and the unit that had been fallen back from has that protection to ensure the unit is not going to be insta gibbed off the board

mchammadad wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I actually like that idea listed.

So I wanna recap my favorite ideas with one of my suggestions and ideas for the, well, ideas.
1. If you fall back, the opposing enemy unit gets to swing at you. You're hit on a 6+ regardless of modifiers (mostly to help protect our Power Fist dudes).
2. The unit that was fled from cannot be shot at unless you're within 9". I'm open to what this number should be. 9" seems like a number GW likes to use though.
3. If you have the Fly keyword, you suffer a -1 to shoot in addition to any other penalties you might received from moving.

How does that overall sound?

#1 i would ditch if your using #2 cause #2 fixes the problem people would be facing.

Otherwise, these 2 things would be just fine.

Idea 2 and 3 would work just great. 1 is unnecessary as the unit in question won't need to fight the unit that fell back, cause they already had been punished enough and the unit that had been fallen back from has that protection to ensure the unit is not going to be insta gibbed off the board

The question is if there's really enough punishment without making Fall Back pointless. I think all 3 of those fixes would generally fix the complaints about Fall Back without favoring either player to much.

The more I play, the more I think it should just be eliminated.

The only reason it was put into in the first place was because tar pitting was a legitimate and obnoxious tactic during previous editions.

If you could have 30 cultist surround a dreadnought last edition whom only had 3 attacks, he would need 10 turns of perfect rolling to kill that squad, which was impossible.

Combined with fearless, it was the most annoying thing you could do to your opponent. Got a monster that can one shot my units? how bout i surround him in melee so he cant get away and shoot those units, Got a melee unit that is really good? i hope he likes munching on the same unit for the rest of the game

Fall back in itself was needed. But the way it has been implemented is extremely sloppy. Now, instead of actually fighting in Close combat, the unit just walks away while the army cleans up the mess.

In a lot of those situations, if you could've gotten a Dread charged by those Cultists the opponent deserved to be tarpitted.

Now it's just too easy like you were given infinite Get Out Of Jail Free cards.

mchammadad wrote:
The only reason it was put into in the first place was because tar pitting was a legitimate and obnoxious tactic during previous editions.

If you could have 30 cultist surround a dreadnought last edition whom only had 3 attacks, he would need 10 turns of perfect rolling to kill that squad, which was impossible.

Combined with fearless, it was the most annoying thing you could do to your opponent. Got a monster that can one shot my units? how bout i surround him in melee so he cant get away and shoot those units, Got a melee unit that is really good? i hope he likes munching on the same unit for the rest of the game

Fall back in itself was needed. But the way it has been implemented is extremely sloppy. Now, instead of actually fighting in Close combat, the unit just walks away while the army cleans up the mess.

I know. But this current version WASN'T needed. I'd rather play with tarpits.

Martel732 wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
The only reason it was put into in the first place was because tar pitting was a legitimate and obnoxious tactic during previous editions.

If you could have 30 cultist surround a dreadnought last edition whom only had 3 attacks, he would need 10 turns of perfect rolling to kill that squad, which was impossible.

Combined with fearless, it was the most annoying thing you could do to your opponent. Got a monster that can one shot my units? how bout i surround him in melee so he cant get away and shoot those units, Got a melee unit that is really good? i hope he likes munching on the same unit for the rest of the game

Fall back in itself was needed. But the way it has been implemented is extremely sloppy. Now, instead of actually fighting in Close combat, the unit just walks away while the army cleans up the mess.

I know. But this current version WASN'T needed. I'd rather play with tarpits.

Both suck. It's either terrible for Shooting armies or Terrible for Melee armies. Tarpits were insanely annoying and stupid to play against, but when charging for Tau is something more effective then charging for melee units something is wrong. (Deny a unit its shooting with a 5 man FW squad, pull back and unload).

It would've been good if GW decided to retool initative from simple pecking order mechanism to reaction check value instead of out right removing it.