Am I right in thinking we don't know yet if you can normally retreat from combat?
This is very interesting...
The wording implies normal falling back still exists.
Though of course the details of that may have changed too.
The fact this stratagem says after checking if anyone dies you then perform a Fall Back implies that a normal Fall Back is safe to me, otherwise you would be potentially losing models twice when using this strat and that seems extremely unlikely to me.
So I believe Falling Back is more or less same as 8e, and this strat specifically to give an option when tri pointed or similarly blocked.
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
Not really. The issue with melee isn't killing the chaff you run into, it's getting blown to bits by the gunline that has free shots on you after the chaff falls back.
The existence of this strat makes me way less hopefully that regular falling back has been limited. :/
This would make the "opponents fight first" a lot less interesting, as falling back is almost always what you want to do during your turn.
I think its fine, will be rarely used but always there, has a heavy enough cost (not just CP but risk of your own units to prevent it from being used on everything). You for sure won't use it on MCs, Tanks, etc.. as often b.c a roll of 1 means a large model is destroyed.
This definitely makes it appear that Fall Back is still a normal action a unit can perform.
It appears GW isn't big on units taking hostages. They must have found it gamey, but have provided an out for the player rather than writing it out of the rules entirely.
Yes, you opponent can runaway even if you tripoint them, assuming they have 2 CP available and are willing to spend it on that. If you think that is the case, maybe you should concentrate on destroying the enemy unit rather than playing paddy cake with it.
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
Not really. The issue with melee isn't killing the chaff you run into, it's getting blown to bits by the gunline that has free shots on you after the chaff falls back.
I think it's a fine tool to exist to prevent tri pointing. Because theres no counter play to it otherwise and it's just not fun.
That said, I do agree that there should ALSO be more of a draw back or barrier to regular Fall Back.
McGibs wrote: The existence of this strat makes me way less hopefully that regular falling back has been limited. :/
This would make the "opponents fight first" a lot less interesting, as falling back is almost always what you want to do during your turn.
The opponents fight first is what makes me think Fallback is limited, but I base that on absolutely nothing.
Interesting sidenote: that means you can now detonate your (Artemia) Hellhounds, Malcador Infernus, Valdor Tank Hunter etc. a bit easier as you can fall back into engagement range of something, die and then explode on a 4+ (or 2+ for the Valdor)
Pretty expensive for 2CP and not guaranteed, but the ability to move through models together with 12'' fall back could bring you through a screen and into the backline now and then
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
Not really. The issue with melee isn't killing the chaff you run into, it's getting blown to bits by the gunline that has free shots on you after the chaff falls back.
I think it's a fine tool to exist to prevent tri pointing. Because theres no counter play to it otherwise and it's just not fun.
That said, I do agree that there should ALSO be more of a draw back or barrier to regular Fall Back.
IIRC the wording for the Overwatch strat basically said 'use this strat to fire Overwatch', so it's still possible that Fall Back is only usable when either this stratagem or a presumed 1CP generic fall back stratagem is used.
And being blasted off the table, because your opponent always can avoid melee, which means every melee unit has to deal with the fact that it maybe eating the fire power of an entire army to the face is considered fun?
It appears GW isn't big on units taking hostages. They must have found it gamey, but have provided an out for the player rather than writing it out of the rules entirely.
And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?
There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.
catbarf wrote: IIRC the wording for the Overwatch strat basically said 'use this strat to fire Overwatch', so it's still possible that Fall Back is only usable when either this stratagem or a presumed 1CP generic fall back stratagem is used.
Maybe, but it seems unlikely. Why write a core rule that only applies when specific stratagems are used?
And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?
There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.
That tanks can shoot into combat just makes me think of them saying, "ok no free Fallback, but you can do this".
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
I can't think of a single army right now, that likes the idea of having their main melee units sitting in the open, in front of the opposing army, just because your opponent paid 2CP, and you can not do a thing about it, aside if you are a DE player and use the cancel stratagems. I am just not sure how interested in melee armies are, all I have seen, and I don't claim I have seen all varid versions of DE armies, seemed to be rather shoting focused.
At most, I can see the fallback penalty be increased. Going by that strategem for example a falling back unit could be unable to manifest powers in addition to no fighting and no shooting.
Spoletta wrote: At most, I can see the fallback penalty be increased. Going by that strategem for example a falling back unit could be unable to manifest powers in addition to no fighting and no shooting.
Which doesn't mean much as it's the rest of the army blasting the assault unit to pieces that's the issue.
Stux wrote: Maybe, but it seems unlikely. Why write a core rule that only applies when specific stratagems are used?
They've already said that the Overwatch strat isn't the only way that the Overwatch rule could be used.
And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?
There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.
That tanks can shoot into combat just makes me think of them saying, "ok no free Fallback, but you can do this".
I hope so, otherwise the only way to do melee is going to be charges from point blank range, or running armies that do multiple charges per turn or who can multi charge without fail, which would require a very fast moving army.
Spoletta wrote: At most, I can see the fallback penalty be increased. Going by that strategem for example a falling back unit could be unable to manifest powers in addition to no fighting and no shooting.
Don't worry, Marines will be able to.
"And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
I can't think of a single army right now, that likes the idea of having their main melee units sitting in the open, in front of the opposing army, just because your opponent paid 2CP, and you can not do a thing about it, aside if you are a DE player and use the cancel stratagems. I am just not sure how interested in melee armies are, all I have seen, and I don't claim I have seen all varid versions of DE armies, seemed to be rather shoting focused.
The concept is that your melee unit shouldn't be in front of the enemy in any case. It should be in the middle, on the objectives, where all those terrain elements are screening it and slaughtering on sight any enemy that wants the objective.
9th edition gives me a lot of Kill Team vibe in the way things are shaping up.
It appears GW isn't big on units taking hostages. They must have found it gamey, but have provided an out for the player rather than writing it out of the rules entirely.
And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?
There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.
No matter how many times people say this, a unit being unable to Advance, Shoot (unless it has Fly), or Charge is not no downside. It may be insufficient downside from your perspective, but it is not no downside. Heck, forcing your opponent to move away from your unit can itself be a benefit if they have to leave an objective or otherwise good position on the field.
And we still don't know if Fallback hasn't been changed in some other manner.
On a podcast one of the playtesters alluded to the fact that Fall Back is more punitive in 9th and not something you want to do (or maybe even can do?). One of the rumors is that even units with fly can longer shoot when falling back which would explain why vehicles and monsters can now shoot in combat.
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?
The last line makes me think this is the new counter to tripointing, not the new fallback mechanic. Nope, looking at it it's 100% designed to be a way around tripointing, not the new fallback mechanic in general. That's why you can move over enemy models.
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
I can't think of a single army right now, that likes the idea of having their main melee units sitting in the open, in front of the opposing army, just because your opponent paid 2CP, and you can not do a thing about it, aside if you are a DE player and use the cancel stratagems. I am just not sure how interested in melee armies are, all I have seen, and I don't claim I have seen all varid versions of DE armies, seemed to be rather shoting focused.
DE has Grotesques, wyches, Reavers, Talos, etc.. that do get played. Some people play 20+ Grotesques for example and them having 40mm bases in 10man units they can easily surround most things.
sweetbacon wrote: On a podcast one of the playtesters alluded to the fact that Fall Back is more punitive in 9th and not something you want to do (or maybe even can do?). One of the rumors is that even units with fly can longer shoot when falling back which would explain why vehicles and monsters can now shoot in combat.
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?
Why would a knight ever use this? stompy feet do more damage than a lot of army's main guns against most things.
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?
He could also just stay in combat, shoot his non-blast weapons at the melee unit (and, if he wipes them, his blast weapons at something else) and then slaughter them in CC if they survive anyway.
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?
Knights can move through most models currently so the application is up in the air. Though I'm unsure why you'd Fallback with a knight when it can shoot into combat now?
sweetbacon wrote: On a podcast one of the playtesters alluded to the fact that Fall Back is more punitive in 9th and not something you want to do (or maybe even can do?). One of the rumors is that even units with fly can longer shoot when falling back which would explain why vehicles and monsters can now shoot in combat.
Was that FLG?
It was one of the podcasts on the FLG network. An interview with Brad Chester.
It appears GW isn't big on units taking hostages. They must have found it gamey, but have provided an out for the player rather than writing it out of the rules entirely.
And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?
There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.
No matter how many times people say this, a unit being unable to Advance, Shoot (unless it has Fly), or Charge is not no downside. It may be insufficient downside from your perspective, but it is not no downside. Heck, forcing your opponent to move away from your unit can itself be a benefit if they have to leave an objective or otherwise good position on the field.
And we still don't know if Fallback hasn't been changed in some other manner.
And no matter how many times people say this they look at a unit in a vacuum.
Now the rest of the army can fire on that unit. No downside at all. All you have to do is nudge a unit away and point and click. This is not good game design.
Stux wrote: So I believe Falling Back is more or less same as 8e...
That is soul-crushingly awful.
Yep, GW looooooooves their shooty armies. I knew they wouldnt touch fallback. So i suppose its still just better to use my berserkers and flag carriers and point grappers in the new edition. ffs...
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?
The whole point of my post was that it is and should be a big penalty.
You are holding back 1cp for the command reroll right? In the extremely niche situation where you actually want to use this on Knight because you've been tri pointed by 3 tanks and dont want to stomp them for some reason I mean.
Interesting. Particularly that if you use this then you can do nothing else that turn even if you have a rule to allow you to shoot etc after falling back.
Also interesting that there is now a way to deliberately suicide a unit by making sure you end the move inside engagement range. I’m sure not all that helpful very often, but it does open up the possibility, especially if something explodes when it dies.
I agree with the others above that it looks like fallback is most probably still a thing and that this is specifically to give an answer to tripointing and blocking.
So how many core strats have been revealed now? They said there are 7 in 9th Ed IIRC, the original 3 from 8th (command reroll, Insane bravery and,counter-offensive) plus overwatch, cut them down and now desperate breakout.
That only leaves 1 more. Prepared positions might still be a thing, so that would be all 7.
Stux wrote: So I believe Falling Back is more or less same as 8e...
That is soul-crushingly awful.
Yep, GW looooooooves their shooty armies. I knew they wouldnt touch fallback. So i suppose its still just better to use my berserkers and flag carriers and point grappers in the new edition. ffs...
Looks like the 'Jump to Conclusions' board game is selling out.
Yeah we have no idea if the wording of Fall Back is changing. It may well be.
I just suspect it wont directly cause damage to the unit falling backer require a roll to succeed because neither of those make sense to me in context with this new strat.
But we really dont know beyond that kind of reasonable speculation.
This just makes wrapping even more important, because if you can wrap two units, they can't do anything about it.
Meanwhile it gives anyone in combat with an enemy unit a 2CP "just suicide this unit" strat. Not only can you ignore wrapping, you can ignore move-blocking too by just pulling the unit - you can use the strat and just pick up your unit even if it physically can't make a fall-back move because it's so surrounded it can't move without ending within 1" of an enemy model.
In other words, this does little to fix wrapping, and goes even further in the direction of falling back being something you do not to save your unit but to allow you to blast the opposing unit off the board with the rest of your army.
I've never understood people who complain about the "gaminess" of wrapping. Surely physically surrounding your enemy so they can't retreat is far, far, far less "gamey" than being able to simply withdraw from melee with no penalty while your opponent stands there twiddling his thumbs while he waits for you to blow him off the table with the rest of your army?
Very lame they teased this without clearing up what if any changes have been made to the base fall back rules. As is, this is a straight-up nerf to melee that amazingly ALSO manages to make wrapping even more a key part of the game...which is kinda the worst of both worlds.
yukishiro1 wrote: This just makes wrapping even more important, because if you can wrap two units, they can't do anything about it.
Meanwhile it gives anyone in combat with an enemy unit a 2CP "just suicide this unit" strat.
In other words, this does little to fix wrapping, and goes even further in the direction of falling back being something you do not to save your unit but to allow you to blast the opposing unit off the board with the rest of your army.
I've never understood people who complain about the "gaminess" of wrapping. Surely physically surrounding your enemy so they can't retreat is far, far, far less "gamey" than being able to simply withdraw from melee with no penalty while your opponent stands there twiddling his thumbs while he waits for you to blow him off the table with the rest of your army?
Very lame they teased this without clearing up what if any changes have been made to the base fall back rules. As is, this is a straight-up nerf to melee that amazingly ALSO manages to make wrapping even more a key part of the game...which is kinda the worst of both worlds.
Then let me clarify. Fallback is awful and shouldn't exist. But it does. The solution, however is WORSE than the disease. BADC should NOT be able to charge in with the intention of causing minimal casualties. So it's not the tripoint itself as the setup for the tripoint.
The person who suggested having falling back happen at the end of the shooting phase but letting you do it through enemy units had the right idea, IMO. That makes falling back actually about saving your unit, not about suiciding your unit so the rest of your army can shoot.
This just makes the falling back interactions even gamier than they were before.
yukishiro1 wrote: The person who suggested having falling back happen at the end of the shooting phase but letting you do it through enemy units had the right idea, IMO. That makes falling back actually about saving your unit, not about suiciding your unit so the rest of your army can shoot.
This just makes the falling back interactions even gamier than they were before.
Agreed. It's a gak fix. And I still have to feth around with tripointing to force people to use this strat. As I said, the only way to salvage this imo is to force chargers into CC if they rolled high enough.
The fact that this Stratagem:
-Costs 2CP
-Kills 1/6 of your own models
-Prevents that unit from doing anything else later in the turn
Convinces me that regular Fall Back is definitely getting nerfed in some way. If Fall Back were being kept as unrestricted as it currently is, this would have been a 1CP stratagem, or wouldn't have so many harsh downsides.
catbarf wrote: The fact that this Stratagem:
-Costs 2CP
-Kills 1/6 of your own models
-Prevents that unit from doing anything else later in the turn
Convinces me that regular Fall Back is definitely getting nerfed in some way. If Fall Back were being kept as unrestricted as it currently is, this would have been a 1CP stratagem, or wouldn't have so many harsh downsides.
I dunno, this seems like it could be just an anti-tripoint move. Although if there are changes to Fall Back I hope it doesn't change my UM CT too much.
catbarf wrote: The fact that this Stratagem:
-Costs 2CP
-Kills 1/6 of your own models
-Prevents that unit from doing anything else later in the turn
Convinces me that regular Fall Back is definitely getting nerfed in some way. If Fall Back were being kept as unrestricted as it currently is, this would have been a 1CP stratagem, or wouldn't have so many harsh downsides.
I don't know. In many cases as a shooting army if you enemy has tri-pointed one of your screens thats nearly and auto loss. I don't care if all the unit is wiped out, I just want to shoot at whats tri-pointing it. The bigger downside is the 2CP cost. With less CP, and most tri-pointing happening on turn 2 or 3, making your opponent spend 2 CP is a worth investment.
It appears GW isn't big on units taking hostages. They must have found it gamey, but have provided an out for the player rather than writing it out of the rules entirely.
And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?
There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.
No matter how many times people say this, a unit being unable to Advance, Shoot (unless it has Fly), or Charge is not no downside. It may be insufficient downside from your perspective, but it is not no downside. Heck, forcing your opponent to move away from your unit can itself be a benefit if they have to leave an objective or otherwise good position on the field.
And we still don't know if Fallback hasn't been changed in some other manner.
And no matter how many times people say this they look at a unit in a vacuum.
Now the rest of the army can fire on that unit. No downside at all. All you have to do is nudge a unit away and point and click. This is not good game design.
As I said, not enough downside in your opinion.
The big differences between 8th Edition Fall Back and 3-7th Edition is that before you had to fail a Morale check to Fall Back and there was a chance you could lose the unit (unless it was a Space Marine). Now you get to make the decision as the general and there is no chance the unit dies.
Player agency is good game design. So your the complaint isn't about bad game design. it's about wanting to have your close combat unit be able to hide from guns by engaging in close combat while your opponent sits there without being able to reply.
So now we wait to see if GW made any alterations to the Fall Back rules that provide further penalty and thus increase the 'difficulty' of the decision.
sweetbacon wrote: On a podcast one of the playtesters alluded to the fact that Fall Back is more punitive in 9th and not something you want to do (or maybe even can do?). One of the rumors is that even units with fly can longer shoot when falling back which would explain why vehicles and monsters can now shoot in combat.
Was that FLG?
It was one of the podcasts on the FLG network. An interview with Brad Chester.
Hmm. It really was a passing comment and it's hard to parse anything from it.
I don't think this is the "New Fall Back". Given GW's general rules design philosophies not wanting to get into such micropositioning detail, the way the strat is written, the existence of the "Cut Them Down" strat and its implications, and GW's typical desire to fix rules with more rules, I'm thinking Fall Back remains unchanged and that they never really initially intended tripointing, but once aware of it, decided they didn't want to mess with their original movement/fall back rules but instead would just accept it and add a new Stratagem as a solution for people to play with, particularly given how much they like to add new rules to fix problems with other rules.
Spoletta wrote: At most, I can see the fallback penalty be increased. Going by that strategem for example a falling back unit could be unable to manifest powers in addition to no fighting and no shooting.
This man is right. Units with fly, for example, can’t shoot after falling back. Unless some special rule/stratagem specifically allows them to.
I think this is a good Strategem. It's a pretty big cost to pay. I like that the cost actually scales with how valuable the falling-back unit is. You get something more valuable than chaff surrounded and you've got a deadly choice.
On Fall Back changes in general:
I bet there's some kinda of change on the way...but if they got rid of it or nerfed it to the ground it will only exacerbate the keep-away game. Part of the "problem" of melee is the all-or-nothing nature of it. If a shooting army has no option but to die when a unit gets tagged the game becomes about avoiding combat at all costs.
With the overwatch and cover changes it's already getting much more difficult for a shooting army to stay on an objective in the face of a melee threat, for instance. That's fine but, all stacked up, you can go too far.
Martel732 wrote: There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.
Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.
Given how poorly known, understood, and utilized Tripointing and other such things are by the community at large, particularly outside the competition oriented crowd, I'm going to be unsurprised when a huge chunk of the playerbase doesn't actually get what this stratagem does or only find it to be only useful in rare exceptions, while some elements of the competitive crowd may find themselves utilizing it almost every turn.
Vaktathi wrote: Given how poorly known, understood, and utilized Tripointing and other such things are by the community at large, particularly outside the competition oriented crowd, I'm going to be unsurprised when a huge chunk of the playerbase doesn't actually get what this stratagem does or only find it to be only useful in rare exceptions, while some elements of the competitive crowd may find themselves utilizing it almost every turn.
This may be my playgroup I've never seen tripointing work but I've also never had problems of too many units getting wiped in shooting (unless against some specific Tau build).
Martel732 wrote: But I still have to take the time to force you to do this.
Exactly. It's the worst of all possible worlds. Preserves all the tedium, while diminishing the reward, but still keeping the reward high enough that you have to go through the tedium.
And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.
Martel732 wrote: There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.
Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.
The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.
Pyroalchi wrote: And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.
Well, but you'd still need to be able to end the move in the new spot - in other words, if you can't end the move except on top of other models, you'd presumably be destroyed at your original point, not at the point where you finish a move you can't actually make.
The model is only destroyed in the post-move position if it can make that move, but ends within 1" of something.
Martel732 wrote: There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.
Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.
The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.
It would save your unit from dying. In other words, the whole reason a unit should be falling back.
"Hey guys, we need to move backwards even if it kills us so the rest of our army can shoot these guys" said nobody, ever.
The whole way fall back is implemented in 40k is nonsensical. The point of falling back should be so your unit survives, not to open up the enemy to shooting.
Pyroalchi wrote: And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.
And then what ? Your demolition vehicle cant do anything else for the rest of the turn. It cant explode.
Martel732 wrote: There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.
Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.
The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.
Perfectly sums up why adding it in 8th was terrible. You would fall back because your unit is outmatched and it will prevent their immediate slaughter.
Ideally you would charge in a unit of your own better suited to combating them in melee. Encouraging list building that skews all in on shooting is a huge part of why lethality is out of control.
*I also think melee movement should be drastically reduced in a world where easy mode escape and point click gameplay is reigned in.
** Mono phase armies should go away. Let's see more of the Tau Empire that can swing a stick.
Martel732 wrote: There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.
Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.
The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.
Perfectly sums up why adding it in 8th was terrible. You would fall back because your unit is outmatched and it will prevent their immediate slaughter.
Ideally you would charge in a unit of your own better suited to combating them in melee. Encouraging list building that skews sll in on shooting is a huge part of why lethality is out of control.
*I also think melee movement should be drastically reduced in a world where easy mode escape and point click gameplay is reigned in.
** Mono phase armies should go away. Let's see more of the Tau Empire that can swing a stick.
Yeah lets go back to the tarpit lists and taking shooting units being a complete waste of time, we had that in previous editions and guess what no-one ever falls back ever.
Pyroalchi wrote: And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.
And then what ? Your demolition vehicle cant do anything else for the rest of the turn. It cant explode.
If you could move it to somewhere that it was within 1" of an enemy, it would be destroyed at that point, meaning you'd get to roll for exploding. Unless you think exploding is "doing something under that rule," I guess - though that seems unlikely given that exploding is something that happens automatically.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah lets go back to the tarpit lists and taking shooting units being a complete waste of time, we had that in previous editions and guess what no-one ever falls back ever.
Did you not see shooting in 7th? I saw plenty of it.
If falling back happened at the end of the shooting phase, what it would encourage is combined-arms lists with shooting and melee components; you would fall back to make room for your counter-charge to charge the enemy, which is a lot more thematic than "ok guys let's calmly walk backwards while those orks just stand there, so the rest of the army can blow them to smithereens since they are rooted to the ground and unable to move while we move."
The result would be armies that function in multiple phases. If it made gunlines with zero combat ability become non-competitive, that's 100% fine with me. One-phase armies are bad to play and bad to play against.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah lets go back to the tarpit lists and taking shooting units being a complete waste of time, we had that in previous editions and guess what no-one ever falls back ever.
Did you not see shooting in 7th? I saw plenty of it.
I'm going back to even earlier editions.
8th edition has melee at a significant disadvantage, but you don't solve the problem with them being at a disadvantage by upending the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: If falling back happened at the end of the shooting phase, what it would encourage is combined-arms lists with shooting and melee components; you would fall back to make room for your counter-charge to charge the enemy, which is a lot more thematic than "ok guys let's calmly walk backwards while those orks just stand there, so the rest of the army can blow them to smithereens since they are rooted to the ground and unable to move while we move."
The result would be armies that function in multiple phases. If it made gunlines with zero combat ability become non-competitive, that's 100% fine with me. One-phase armies are bad to play and bad to play against.
Except thatdoesnt work when GW has designed codex's without combat ability.
Well, but you'd still need to be able to end the move in the new spot - in other words, if you can't end the move except on top of other models, you'd presumably be destroyed at your original point, not at the point where you finish a move you can't actually make.
The model is only destroyed in the post-move position if it can make that move, but ends within 1" of something.
The Cyclops is really small, like roughly 2 x 1'' small. I think it will fit often enough
@ P5freak:
And then what ? Your demolition vehicle cant do anything else for the rest of the turn. It cant explode
Yes it cannot detonate its charge (which would be an autohit with 2D6 shots that have to go through the wounding and save sequence), but it can land within 1'', be destroyed and then roll for explosion causin D3 mortal wounds on a 3+.
As I said, 2CP are not cheap, but on the other hand just crossing through up to 10'' of models right into some expensive characters as long as there is any 2x1'' hole near them is... sometimes worth it, don't you think?
Edit: sorry, I realized the last line can be read in a pretty offensive tone. It is not meant that way but as a serious question. I ASSUME it might be worth it, but I lack experience and would be grateful for a second and third opinion.
yukishiro1 wrote: If falling back happened at the end of the shooting phase, what it would encourage is combined-arms lists with shooting and melee components; you would fall back to make room for your counter-charge to charge the enemy, which is a lot more thematic than "ok guys let's calmly walk backwards while those orks just stand there, so the rest of the army can blow them to smithereens since they are rooted to the ground and unable to move while we move."
The result would be armies that function in multiple phases. If it made gunlines with zero combat ability become non-competitive, that's 100% fine with me. One-phase armies are bad to play and bad to play against.
Hrm, I think in most cases, fall back after the shooting phase would render the mechanic pointless, mostly because if you have a counter-charge unit then you probably can reach them without needing your own dudes out of the way, and many armies simply won't have anything to countercharge with. Moving out of combat should be dangerous, the old Sweeping Advance mechanic was what killed most models in CC in previous editions as opposed to direct attacks, but I don't think moving Fall Back to after the shooting phase gives it any relevancy.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah lets go back to the tarpit lists and taking shooting units being a complete waste of time, we had that in previous editions and guess what no-one ever falls back ever.
Did you not see shooting in 7th? I saw plenty of it.
I'm going back to even earlier editions.
8th edition has melee at a significant disadvantage, but you don't solve the problem with them being at a disadvantage by upending the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: If falling back happened at the end of the shooting phase, what it would encourage is combined-arms lists with shooting and melee components; you would fall back to make room for your counter-charge to charge the enemy, which is a lot more thematic than "ok guys let's calmly walk backwards while those orks just stand there, so the rest of the army can blow them to smithereens since they are rooted to the ground and unable to move while we move."
The result would be armies that function in multiple phases. If it made gunlines with zero combat ability become non-competitive, that's 100% fine with me. One-phase armies are bad to play and bad to play against.
Except thatdoesnt work when GW has designed codex's without combat ability.
There's only one real codex in the game (inquisition, fallen, assassins etc aren't real codexes and don't count) without combat ability. And that's just because they made the melee options in that faction bad in 8th for no reason. There are a million ways you could address this single faction to fix the problem, e.g. either by improving their melee options or giving them all the 9th edition vehicle/monster rule that allows shooting in combat at a -1.
What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?
RAW they can "attempt" to fall back, and then you can stop them from doing it using any of the tricks for stopping units from falling back. So they then spent 2CP and removed models on 1s for no benefit. To the point where presumably nobody is going to do it unless it's a win-or-lose sort of situation.
So it just makes anti-fallback strats and rules even more powerful than they were previously.
Gadzilla666 wrote: What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?
There is no language that even suggests it trumps anti-fallback tech. It just allows them to move through models.
Martel732 wrote: Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.
Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.
Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?
I'm talking like 4th ed. Way back.
Wasn't 3rd and 4th very much CC> shooting editions?
I remeber something about supercharged rhino rushes and choas being crazy but ut has been a lot of years.
Martel732 wrote: Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.
Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.
Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?
I'm talking like 4th ed. Way back.
Wasn't 3rd and 4th very much CC> shooting editions?
I remeber something about supercharged rhino rushes and choas being crazy but ut has been a lot of years.
3rd yes. But by the end, starcannons ended that party. 4th ed was actually fairly balanced, but skimmers couldn't be charged at all. So maybe 4th was the beginning of the shooting dominance.
Martel732 wrote: There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.
You're going to make sure you have that CP when you need it?
Something like this would have the most positive effect against single unit first turn charges, denying that early unit shutdown, so you're guaranteed to have that CP.
Martel732 wrote: Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.
Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.
Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?
I'm talking like 4th ed. Way back.
Wasn't 3rd and 4th very much CC> shooting editions?
I remeber something about supercharged rhino rushes and choas being crazy but ut has been a lot of years.
Aye, competitive 3rd and 4th were largely dominated by CC armies unless you had skimmers, and 5th was probably the most balanced between the two overall (with some codex issues slightly shifting in favor of shooting), and was probably the last time basic Tacs and CSMs could function genuinely well as generalist units.
Gadzilla666 wrote: What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?
There is no language that even suggests it trumps anti-fallback tech. It just allows them to move through models.
You sure about that? "Assuming that unit was not destroyed it can now attempt to fall back". Sounds like a get out of jail card. It does say "attempt" though, so there must be some kind of test to fall back now. Maybe wishful thinking on my part.
Gadzilla666 wrote: What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?
There is no language that even suggests it trumps anti-fallback tech. It just allows them to move through models.
You sure about that? "Assuming that unit was not destroyed it can now attempt to fall back". Sounds like a get out of jail card. It does say "attempt" though, so there must be some kind of test to fall back now. Maybe wishful thinking on my part.
I'm grasping at those same straws. I'm hoping there is a mechanic to get away from combat (either movement modified roll off or LD based) and this is for the times units are locked not just engaged.
"Attempt" just means it can start to fall back, then if you have to roll to beat a wych or if the opponent wants to use a strat that prevents falling back on a 2+ or whatever they can do that.
I would like to think falling back will be nerfed further and it's possible it will be, but there's no reason to think so simply because of that strat, especially with the facebook page answering and saying "no, normal fall back is still around."
yukishiro1 wrote: "Attempt" just means it can start to fall back, then if you have to roll to beat a wych or if the opponent wants to use a strat that prevents falling back on a 2+ or whatever they can do that.
I would like to think falling back will be nerfed further and it's possible it will be, but there's no reason to think so simply because of that strat, especially with the facebook page answering and saying "no, normal fall back is still around."
If you have another mechanic limiting fall back, there is nothing here that suggests those limitations don't apply.
Right, we're on the same page. There's no reason to read it otherwise.
This makes it possible to fall back from a trap. That's all it does. It says nothing one way or the other about how generic falling back is or is not changing, and it does nothing to limit anti-fall-back abilities that exist in the game already.
I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind- that isn't going to happen. But I am almost positive this is the new fallback.
Just like only one unit can overwatch per turn because it's a strat, now only one unit will be able to fall back per turn.
A lot of melee players don't like the strat because they don't think it goes far enough. I get where they're coming from, even though I don't share that opinion. But if it is limited by being a strat to saving one unit a turn, I think that, when added to all the other costs, would satisfy melee folks.
I could certainly be wrong. But this being the new fallback seems to me to fit most with types of changes we've already seen.
The good news is they will probably talk about it in the 40K Daily this week.
yukishiro1 wrote: There's only one real codex in the game (inquisition, fallen, assassins etc aren't real codexes and don't count) without combat ability. And that's just because they made the melee options in that faction bad in 8th for no reason. There are a million ways you could address this single faction to fix the problem, e.g. either by improving their melee options or giving them all the 9th edition vehicle/monster rule that allows shooting in combat at a -1.
This.
I wish people would stop trying to make T'au just as generic as everyone else. I want my T'au to play like T'au, not like a weaker version of AM.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind- that isn't going to happen. But I am almost positive this is the new fallback.
Just like only one unit can overwatch per turn because it's a strat, now only one unit will be able to fall back per turn.
A lot of melee players don't like the strat because they don't think it goes far enough. I get where they're coming from, even though I don't share that opinion. But if it is limited by being a strat to saving one unit a turn, I think that, when added to all the other costs, would satisfy melee folks.
I could certainly be wrong. But this being the new fallback seems to me to fit most with types of changes we've already seen.
The good news is they will probably talk about it in the 40K Daily this week.
This strat references <Fall Back>. This strongly implies there are other sources of fallback.
yukishiro1 wrote: There's only one real codex in the game (inquisition, fallen, assassins etc aren't real codexes and don't count) without combat ability. And that's just because they made the melee options in that faction bad in 8th for no reason. There are a million ways you could address this single faction to fix the problem, e.g. either by improving their melee options or giving them all the 9th edition vehicle/monster rule that allows shooting in combat at a -1.
This.
I wish people would stop trying to make T'au just as generic as everyone else. I want my T'au to play like T'au, not like a weaker version of AM.
There are plenty of cool unique ways they could alter Tau. Melee capable Auxiliaries make the most sense to me but it's far from thr only option.
They could add battlesuits that are designed to delay and disable melee units. Something like EMPs and Stun Guns etc that just debuff the unit attacking them. In a system where melee is difficult to escape from just stalemating key units while the guns deal with other threats has value. It would also require melee hravy forces to have shooting elements to remove the tech tarpit before you hit their lines. You could have units that instead of attacking in your combat phase instead fall back and drop debilitating mines/caltrops.
I'd prefer that as a Tau player instead of being completely at the mercy of what every new edition tries in the shooting/melee dynamic. It's also probably a Millstone around the neck of the design team anytime anything to improve the balance between melee and shooting is presented. What about Tau? is quite possibly holding the entire engine up.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind- that isn't going to happen. But I am almost positive this is the new fallback.
Just like only one unit can overwatch per turn because it's a strat, now only one unit will be able to fall back per turn.
A lot of melee players don't like the strat because they don't think it goes far enough. I get where they're coming from, even though I don't share that opinion. But if it is limited by being a strat to saving one unit a turn, I think that, when added to all the other costs, would satisfy melee folks.
I could certainly be wrong. But this being the new fallback seems to me to fit most with types of changes we've already seen.
The good news is they will probably talk about it in the 40K Daily this week.
This strat references <Fall Back>. This strongly implies there are other sources of fallback.
But in the same way Overwatch is a Strat that will have certain other natural sources perhaps Fall Back is similarly given to units that traditionally had Hit and Run/ known for their speed/ability to fly etc.
Vaktathi wrote: Given how poorly known, understood, and utilized Tripointing and other such things are by the community at large, particularly outside the competition oriented crowd, I'm going to be unsurprised when a huge chunk of the playerbase doesn't actually get what this stratagem does or only find it to be only useful in rare exceptions, while some elements of the competitive crowd may find themselves utilizing it almost every turn.
Which makes it all the more confusing to me. Why create a stratagem to combat something that isn't widely known or used by the 40k player base?
yukishiro1 wrote: If falling back happened at the end of the shooting phase, what it would encourage is combined-arms lists with shooting and melee components; you would fall back to make room for your counter-charge to charge the enemy, which is a lot more thematic than "ok guys let's calmly walk backwards while those orks just stand there, so the rest of the army can blow them to smithereens since they are rooted to the ground and unable to move while we move."
I think a lot of people would even be fine with Fallback allowing you to move through enemy units if it happened at the end of the shooting phase. Anything that stops assault units from being stranded in the open and shot off the table.
PenitentJake wrote: I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind- that isn't going to happen. But I am almost positive this is the new fallback.
Just like only one unit can overwatch per turn because it's a strat, now only one unit will be able to fall back per turn.
A lot of melee players don't like the strat because they don't think it goes far enough. I get where they're coming from, even though I don't share that opinion. But if it is limited by being a strat to saving one unit a turn, I think that, when added to all the other costs, would satisfy melee folks.
I could certainly be wrong. But this being the new fallback seems to me to fit most with types of changes we've already seen.
The good news is they will probably talk about it in the 40K Daily this week.
The warhammer 40k facebook team said it wasn't the only fall back, it was in addition to the normal fall back.
If they were wrong and it is the only way to fall back, I certainly would not be complaining that it doesn't go far enough.
The warhammer 40k facebook team said it wasn't the only fall back, it was in addition to the normal fall back.
1) I dont for a moment trust the Facebook team to accurately clarify a rule, that hasnt even been revealed yet, in a free text reply on the internet. They get things wrong *all* the damn time.
2) Citation needed. This is at least the second post where you've made this claim, and I think everyone here would like to see what the actual statement was, not just your description of said statement.
The way this strat is worded, there's no way it's the main source of falling back. If it was the same line as overwatch, surely the strat would be called "Fall Back".
I'm still holding out hope that there's some cost to regular falling back, like a roll off or stat check or SOMETHING. Everything they've changed with vehicles shooting in combat and opponents fighting first really only shines if the mechanics for fallback are changed to have a downside (that's more than the unit falling back not being able to shoot. that's not a downside.)
Hence why I allowed for the possibility that they were wrong.
If you want a link just ask, there's no need to be snippy about it.
Here's a copy of the screenshot someone else posted on the other thread:
This statement makes no sense if it's the only way to fall back. Again, it's the facebook team, they're not always right. Which is why I presented it with a caveat.
If the Cultist price isn't an outlier, then a non-negligible price increase to chaff units will reduce the amount of screens we see. That will make it easier for light shooting support to clear screens for the melee units.
If the Cultist price isn't an outlier, then a non-negligible price increase to chaff units will reduce the amount of screens we see. That will make it easier for light shooting support to clear screens for the melee units.
Point differentials of
- infantry vs vehicles.
- man-portable and vehicle weapons now that the latter can move, shoot, and shoot into combat without much hindrance.
- melee & CQC vs long range weapons
and
- Modes of scoring for primary and secondary missions
- Actions and their prevalence
- Changes to list building dynamics (this can go either way)
- a reset of Forgeworld
- Day 0 FAQ & Errata
- Changes to morale
and for unlikely items...
- Changes to auras
- Interactions in the command phase
Kind of like...waiting for all the info and then making a judgement.
I am surprised each morning when the 40k forums aren't locked pending the full edition release, or was it when the codexes are released, or was it the new CA?
I always forget what we're supposed to wait for to see the full design paradigm (because that never changes course drastically mid edition...)
Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.
yukishiro1 wrote: Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.
yukishiro1 wrote: Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.
There's been two dynamics - before 8th the release pace was sloooooooooooow. You could see their though process roll out a quarter at a time. When flyers came out they eventually made adjustments here and there, but then they dropped a whole new idea and started the clock all over again.
With 8th it was the first time in a while they really tried to set the field. They responded pretty well, but it was clear they didn't finish thinking about where they wanted to take the edition before 8th hit. The codex release schedule was stupid fast (it needed to be) and there's no way they had enough testing to keep it all straight. On top of that they were planning this edition.
If there were any period where they could "get it right" it'd be this one, but did they spend enough time testing all the kinks out of this one? I doubt it. Its impossible, but it will more than likely be a step forward rather than backward - as long as they stay involved.
yukishiro1 wrote: Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.
There's been two dynamics - before 8th the release pace was sloooooooooooow. You could see their though process roll out a quarter at a time. When flyers came out they eventually made adjustments here and there, but then they dropped a whole new idea and started the clock all over again.
With 8th it was the first time in a while they really tried to set the field. They responded pretty well, but it was clear they didn't finish thinking about where they wanted to take the edition before 8th hit. The codex release schedule was stupid fast (it needed to be) and there's no way they had enough testing to keep it all straight. On top of that they were planning this edition.
If there were any period where they could "get it right" it'd be this one, but did they spend enough time testing all the kinks out of this one? I doubt it. Its impossible, but it will more than likely be a step forward rather than backward - as long as they stay involved.
I think their engagement with the community and closed playtesters really does speak volumes as to the length and degree they are trying to make sure this game lands well. I personally think that 8th is a great step forward from 6th and 7th (which seemingly drove people away by the bushel) and i think they have a great skeleton to build the game from.
Ultimately, I think that taking the best parts of popular game modes, like ITC and ETC, as well as the feedback from the competitive player base also speaks volumes as to their want to get this right. Lastly, all of the above is a HUGE amount of money to put into a release of an edition for this game that is based on the rules release and not other factors like models and new boxes (though certainly, that is a huge cost factor).
Basically, they may have always done these things, and I never knew, but this is the first time I have heard of, or at least seen it publicly announced and driven, that GW has invested this much money into the "game" and not into more models and new ways to sell them. I think that really does speak volumes to me, and I'm going to remain optimistic.
As a melee centric player (I own a lot of armies, but my favorites are WE, Demons, BA, Tyranids, and SW) and I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech. Fun games are close, dynamic, and exciting. That's one of the things I look forward to when playing!
The biggest question I think, ultimately, that melee is concerned with is the new fallback mechanic. If it's good, and there are some tests that's required, I think it'll make the degree of efficacy between the two competing ideologies pretty narrow, and ultimately that's what we all want. If it's just fall back and get blasted, I have concerns, but without seeing all of the rules, its all conjecture at this point.
I know this is largely heresy here, but i have some faith this is going to work out fine. I dont think 9th will be the penultimate tabletop miniatures game existing, but so far everything i have seen has made me pretty optimistic that this game will be pretty damn good, and help narrow the gap between balanced armies and "single phase active" armies.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
With the difference that there are heavy ranged armies (Guard) and ranged only armies (Tau, with no psychic phase on top of that), while there are basically no melee only armies (just a couple of subfactions).
Melee heavy armies still have ranged options.
Yes it cannot detonate its charge (which would be an autohit with 2D6 shots that have to go through the wounding and save sequence), but it can land within 1'', be destroyed and then roll for explosion causin D3 mortal wounds on a 3+.
Destroyed isnt the same as reduced to 0 wounds. Therefore it doesnt explode.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
With the difference that there are heavy ranged armies (Guard) and ranged only armies (Tau, with no psychic phase on top of that), while there are basically no melee only armies (just a couple of subfactions).
Melee heavy armies still have ranged options.
Well, I'd say Tau have more CC capabilities than my Nurgle Daemons have shooting options.
Well, I'd say Tau have more CC capabilities than my Nurgle Daemons have shooting options.
Right - there's a really complex layer of considerations to be made. People that get their pants in a twist about whatever gets revealed need to moderate their misery a bit until all the rules are out.
yukishiro1 wrote: Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.
The start of 4th was pretty nice.
Csm had the 3.5 codex.
4th was great. CSM kept their 3.5 book until about 2 months before 5th ed too, iirc.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Well, I'd say Tau have more CC capabilities than my Nurgle Daemons have shooting options.
Still, Nurgle Daemons have psychic powers and can be played with a large set of models (chaos), while Tau are shooting only and can ally with literally no one. That's bad game design for sure, but it's what we have now.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
It isn’t going away! You can take that to the bank. Fall back is still available, and this stratagem is a super fall back for when you’re wrapped.
There’s just more limitations to what you can do after falling back, and fly units and flyers don’t get a free pass either.
Eldarain wrote: Tau having a ridiculous stunted design shouldn't hold back the game's core rules.
Tell that to the game designers, I'd be more than happy to have psychic or melee capabilities (or even decent movement across the board, not 8" on crisis suits).
They managed to write an horrible codex this edition, with a faction that works only thanks to the ridiculous shield drones.
Yes it cannot detonate its charge (which would be an autohit with 2D6 shots that have to go through the wounding and save sequence), but it can land within 1'', be destroyed and then roll for explosion causin D3 mortal wounds on a 3+.
Destroyed isnt the same as reduced to 0 wounds. Therefore it doesnt explode.
Yeah, it could work like removing models due to morale in 8th ed, but there they don't say destroyed they say "is removed from play". Didn't an FAQ in 8th say that "destroyed' means the same as killed/reduced to 0 wounds/slain or am I misremembering?
Karol wrote: I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.
sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.
A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?
I think that's fine tbh.
You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?
So....Since you claim to know more than rest what's your source on knight's own ability being changed? Because as is nothing in stratagem says knight's own ability in own datasheet is changed.
Stux wrote: So I believe Falling Back is more or less same as 8e...
That is soul-crushingly awful.
Yep, GW looooooooves their shooty armies. I knew they wouldnt touch fallback. So i suppose its still just better to use my berserkers and flag carriers and point grappers in the new edition. ffs...
You realize right that if fall back wasn't possible anymore with T1 automatic charges being so common shooty armies would die? You think assault armies are bad now? Compared to no fall back without complete rewrite assault armies now would look cheesy broken compared to shooty armies.
No fallback would be such a swing in pendulum that it would require complete rewrite of game. Ditch all codexes and rules and start from scratch.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
I don't remember much of 5th and 6th, but in 7th you had enough firepower to table the opponent in a single turn, deepstrikers could not assault, casualties were taken from the front and charging turn 1 was almost impossible.
You can't compare these 2 editions. In 8th making it into the enemy lines is the norm, without a fallback mechanic of sort CC would be utterly OP.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
I don't remember much of 5th and 6th, but in 7th you had enough firepower to table the opponent in a single turn, deepstrikers could not assault, casualties were taken from the front and charging turn 1 was almost impossible.
You can't compare these 2 editions. In 8th making it into the enemy lines is the norm, without a fallback mechanic of sort CC would be utterly OP.
Nope, without fallback you would be utterly close to balance. But yeah, poor little corner camper gunline would get run down hard, and thats fine, because that boring game stratagy is making the game stale and predictable in turn 2/3.
Point differentials of
- infantry vs vehicles.
- man-portable and vehicle weapons now that the latter can move, shoot, and shoot into combat without much hindrance.
- melee & CQC vs long range weapons
and
- Modes of scoring for primary and secondary missions
- Actions and their prevalence
- Changes to list building dynamics (this can go either way)
- a reset of Forgeworld
- Day 0 FAQ & Errata
- Changes to morale
and for unlikely items...
- Changes to auras
- Interactions in the command phase
Kind of like...waiting for all the info and then making a judgement.
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
Exactly, I 100% agree. And all pure shooting armies like AM and Tau have plenty of options to play mobile shooting armies, not just boring gunlines. SM even have melee specialists. Castles are so annoying that I'd rather go back to assaulted units that could be tied in combat forever than having a meta based on gunline armies.
No one likes castles, but I would prefer them going away because castling in a corner becomes a dumb move and loses you the objective game... which is actually what happens in real 40K, castles are grossly overrated on this board.
We are seeing that the new maps and objectives push you even more to the center, so I wouldn't be worried about castles in 9th.
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
Exactly, I 100% agree. And all pure shooting armies like AM and Tau have plenty of options to play mobile shooting armies, not just boring gunlines. SM even have melee specialists. Castles are so annoying that I'd rather go back to assaulted units that could be tied in combat forever than having a meta based on gunline armies.
AM actually have decent melee tools though.
Now, is their focus still mainly on shooting, yes but i feel like a attrition style list is very much possible, and imo in a guard army there should be one or the other ogryn / squad for countercharge to tie an assult army up.
however, 8th was so favourable to shooting that even the decent AM guard units for melee, (which btw some got nerfed) there was no point for guard to ever really change up, not to mention that the lack of good transport rules and the future smaller boardsize will make transports even less desireable, made the aggressive movement style armies that Tau and AM used to field also a waste of time.
The answer is rarely as one sided.
Same btw for world eaters, which should've a bonus to autocannon use, aswell units that fit more with the brutally strategically cold side of khorne, which however got massively neglected since a long time, sadly, making them basically the equivalent of an angry REEEEEEEing bunch of murderhobos due to that neglect.
As for Tau, considering how their normal vehicles got reduced for the sake of MECHASUITS, aswell as the auxilia the army lost a lot of it's potential.
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
Exactly, I 100% agree. And all pure shooting armies like AM and Tau have plenty of options to play mobile shooting armies, not just boring gunlines. SM even have melee specialists. Castles are so annoying that I'd rather go back to assaulted units that could be tied in combat forever than having a meta based on gunline armies.
Tau actually dont have great mobility in 8th never have, when you have assualt ranges of 24+ inches reliably having 18 inch shooting and no JSJ their isnt a counter play, it's nuke it off the board or you die when you get charged.
Its a large part of the mess with Crisis suits in 8th.
Also with primaris they have lost the advange they used to have of having the longest ranged infantry shooting marine's now do that with free AP.
Also it really does seem like some people just have a built-in passionate hatred for certain codex's.
Plenty of people made Melee armies work in 8th across the edition.
Also it really does seem like some people just have a built-in passionate hatred for certain codex's.
Plenty of people made Melee armies work in 8th across the edition.
that is great, but how does that help if the melee army was something like Inari double dipping on stratagems and traits , with the most broken mechanic for a table top game supporting it. And your option to do melee were dudes moving at the speed of basic infantry across the ground costing more then those eldar shining spears.
The explanation seems like those arguments that DA or SW players should have been happy, because from time to time IH and Ultramarines were doing real good in 8th.
Also if GW decides to leave whole armies underpowered for whole editions, why shouldn't people think that this time it should be their time in to sun, and that those other armies, which they do not play and don't care about, should now be bad for 2-3 years?
Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide). We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights), We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari). We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions). We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock). We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains). We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Yet, alot of the true melee armies like Space Wolves and World Eaters (chaos space marines in general), Blood Angels, Demons, Chaos Knights, Tyranids. Have been sucking hard. So codex creep and nitpicking a select few combos is not something ill attribute to 8th being good melee rules.
Many of those you list here also a good portion have faded away. And green tide (the ONLY way to run orcs melee if you wanted a chance against a gunline), again further telling that 8th is pile of gunline garbage.
Most competitive armies are short range shooting, movility, and meele based.
The assault phase is the most powerfull one in the game, but not to kill your opponent. A player that knows how to use properly the assault and charge phases will wreck any gunline player out there.
Also it really does seem like some people just have a built-in passionate hatred for certain codex's.
Plenty of people made Melee armies work in 8th across the edition.
that is great, but how does that help if the melee army was something like Inari double dipping on stratagems and traits , with the most broken mechanic for a table top game supporting it. And your option to do melee were dudes moving at the speed of basic infantry across the ground costing more then those eldar shining spears.
The explanation seems like those arguments that DA or SW players should have been happy, because from time to time IH and Ultramarines were doing real good in 8th.
Also if GW decides to leave whole armies underpowered for whole editions, why shouldn't people think that this time it should be their time in to sun, and that those other armies, which they do not play and don't care about, should now be bad for 2-3 years?
Plent of them weren't Yannari dude they were fast but not everything can be dismissed as Yannari so point not valid.
As your going to bring up grey knights here is the issue they aren't melee specialist, they are generalists with psychic powers they are all armed with stormbolters dude use them.
They were collected by other nerfs for other factions but thats the GW way and why having a second or thrid army is a much safer way to play if your going to make 40k a big hobby.
Have you not seen DA flyer spam wining at two separate occasions in 8th, they have.
Saying that someone's army sucked so they should be free to wish that on others is just a downright dangerous and atrocious attitude to have.
Using justification like that juat leads to dangerous extremist mentality that says everthing regardless is justifiable.
If you truely believe such stuff you probably should speaj to someone about that.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Yet, alot of the true melee armies like Space Wolves and World Eaters (chaos space marines in general), Blood Angels, Demons, Chaos Knights, Tyranids. Have been sucking hard. So codex creep and nitpicking a select few combos is not something ill attribute to 8th being good melee rules.
Many of those you list here also a good portion have faded away. And green tide (the ONLY way to run orcs melee if you wanted a chance against a gunline), again further telling that 8th is pile of gunline garbage.
I fail to understand your point. In those lists i mentioned there were Blood Angels, Demons and Tyranids, so you probably didn't even read.
Also, obviously most of them are no longer top table material, that's why I said that they were good "At some point in time".
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Hordes armies were never melee oriented though, mostly tarpits oriented. 180 boyz don't kill anything valuable enough to make their points back, they just control the board and tarpit stuf; they just had their glory days when lists were made to counter knights and games lasted 3 turns because of tournaments time limitations. The same exact lists struggled a lot in real metas, with full games and more variety of enemy factions.
All the other examples are actually mostly shooting oriented armies with a melee oriented niche in addition. Are those SM successful lists melee based just because they had 3 smash dudes? What about the rest of the army?
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
Exactly, I 100% agree. And all pure shooting armies like AM and Tau have plenty of options to play mobile shooting armies, not just boring gunlines. SM even have melee specialists. Castles are so annoying that I'd rather go back to assaulted units that could be tied in combat forever than having a meta based on gunline armies.
Tau actually dont have great mobility in 8th never have, when you have assualt ranges of 24+ inches reliably having 18 inch shooting and no JSJ their isnt a counter play, it's nuke it off the board or you die when you get charged.
Its a large part of the mess with Crisis suits in 8th.
Also with primaris they have lost the advange they used to have of having the longest ranged infantry shooting marine's now do that with free AP.
I was thinking about vespids, piranhas and troops in devifishes. All units that exist and never see the table. Tau do have the options, if only GW wanted to add some variety in their style of playing.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Hordes armies were never melee oriented though, mostly tarpits oriented. 180 boyz don't kill anything valuable enough to make their points back, they just control the board and tarpit stuf; they just had their glory days when lists were made to counter knights and games lasted 3 turns because of tournaments time limitations. The same exact lists struggled a lot in real metas, with full games and more variety of enemy factions.
All the other examples are actually mostly shooting oriented armies with a melee oriented niche in addition. Are those SM successful lists melee based just because they had 3 smash dudes? What about the rest of the army?
Well... Elite Melee have been licking the floor the entire 8th ediition. See that fallback gak removed or ajusted in a BIG way, the ranged people NEEDS to learn how to play, AND grow a god damn spine and not just gunline to win. People could do it in 5-7th ofc they can do it here aswel if it gets removed.
Exactly, I 100% agree. And all pure shooting armies like AM and Tau have plenty of options to play mobile shooting armies, not just boring gunlines. SM even have melee specialists. Castles are so annoying that I'd rather go back to assaulted units that could be tied in combat forever than having a meta based on gunline armies.
Tau actually dont have great mobility in 8th never have, when you have assualt ranges of 24+ inches reliably having 18 inch shooting and no JSJ their isnt a counter play, it's nuke it off the board or you die when you get charged.
Its a large part of the mess with Crisis suits in 8th.
Also with primaris they have lost the advange they used to have of having the longest ranged infantry shooting marine's now do that with free AP.
I was thinking about vespids, piranhas and troops in devifishes. All units that exist and never see the table. Tau do have the options, if only GW wanted to add some variety in their style of playing.
Vespis have 18inch weapons
Piranhas still have 18 inch range weapons same issue.
Devilish have 18 inch burst cannon and is the Tau equivalents of a rhino, still doesnt solve the issue of 24+ reliable charges making the range of engagement far to short.
Those "options" still have the same issue of having to be in Reliable charge range being longer than most infantry weapons means their isnt options as they just dont work.
I fail to understand your point. In those lists i mentioned there were Blood Angels, Demons and Tyranids, so you probably didn't even read.
Also, obviously most of them are no longer top table material, that's why I said that they were good "At some point in time".
only those BA lists consited of 15 scouts 2 smash hammers, and the rest of the points in IG and a castellans. That is the point of it. With almost all other marines it was the case of well you can run the same thing as BA, only it will have worse rules. Then 2.0 came and suddenly the top melee army was RG, and it happened clearly because GW forgot that centurions exist.
Plus there still were armies that GW made to do melee, but which were bad at it all 8th ed.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Yes, BUT - those mostly required the strongest units in the game to work or silly amounts of CP forced into one or two units. Others were exploiting times where most other people didn't have their codex and hadn't solved for those units. I think people want to see "medium level" melee armies work. Like the Possessed Bomb is so one-dimensional push these models forward yawn-fest.
Seabass wrote: I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.
Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.
If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.
It isn’t going away! You can take that to the bank. Fall back is still available, and this stratagem is a super fall back for when you’re wrapped.
There’s just more limitations to what you can do after falling back, and fly units and flyers don’t get a free pass either.
If the limitations only apply to the unit falling back then they don't matter, the problem is all the other units in the army blowing the melee unit off the board after the unit falling back does so.
yukishiro1 wrote: Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.
The start of 4th was pretty nice.
Csm had the 3.5 codex.
4th was great. CSM kept their 3.5 book until about 2 months before 5th ed too, iirc.
GW hasn't ever been this focused. It takes a long time to reboot a 35+ faction army system. Their thought process has been pretty open and on point - even where people disagree about the outcome (blast weapons). Also, absolutely none of us would have said GW would ever give digital codexes away for free.
And, no, this doesn't mean this will become the most balanced game, ever. It doesn't have to be. It just have to be fair and fun.
So, yea, maybe giving the benefit of doubt for a little while would be refreshing, but I guess that isn't as fun for some as being histrionic.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
In the context of the game, though, look at what had to happen to make them "good". under what we know now and what we know of 9th, I'd argue that of those lists all almost all changed in significant ways because of how broken the mechanics were.
If melee is on roughly equal footing, then these mechanics wouldn't be needed to make the armies functional. Instead, I think its very telling that all of these armies have to have some kind of some breaking mechanism to get them onto the table vs imperial soup and later SM 2.0 (iron hands and crimson fists).
Also, if we look at the worst armies, especially prior to codex 2.0, the worst armies in the game according to 40k stats were almost universally all melee armies, (or undeveloped armies like inquisition and such). I think its also a reasonable argument to add that many of these armies are supported by or soup into very shooty IG armies with knights backing them up. To say that because a list had 3 smash captains in it is a melee army is a kind of disingenuous. The list isn't a melee list. it had 3 melee models, that could operate because one of them could break a fundamental rule of the game. Its also like saying Ynnari was a melee army, it wasn't. Yes, they ran the big blob of shining spears, but that wasn't the primary focus of the army. The army shot things to pieces and once all of the important bits were destroyed, they could send in the spears. But the spears weren't just a melee threat, they were more often than not a harrying force.
I don't know man, I haven't spoken to anyone who doesn't want to see melee made better in 9th. Even my most stalwart AM players all agree that melee has been pretty atrocious in 8th, and it needs a boost. I dont know if it needs "no fallback" levels of buffs, but they do need a buff.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide). We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights), We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari). We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions). We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock). We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains). We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Yes, BUT - those mostly required the strongest units in the game to work or silly amounts of CP forced into one or two units. Others were exploiting times where most other people didn't have their codex and hadn't solved for those units. I think people want to see "medium level" melee armies work. Like the Possessed Bomb is so one-dimensional push these models forward yawn-fest.
I could say the same for most of the shooting lists that have been seen around. They all revolved around some stupid interaction, a clearly OP model (or faction) or stuff like that.
I have yet to see a "Medium level" shooting army reach top tables. It can be fun and challenging to play, but the same is true for a fluffy melee list.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide). We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights), We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari). We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions). We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock). We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains). We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
In the context of the game, though, look at what had to happen to make them "good". under what we know now and what we know of 9th, I'd argue that of those lists all almost all changed in significant ways because of how broken the mechanics were. If melee is on roughly equal footing, then these mechanics wouldn't be needed to make the armies functional. Instead, I think its very telling that all of these armies have to have some kind of some breaking mechanism to get them onto the table vs imperial soup and later SM 2.0 (iron hands and crimson fists).
Also, if we look at the worst armies, especially prior to codex 2.0, the worst armies in the game according to 40k stats were almost universally all melee armies, (or undeveloped armies like inquisition and such). I think its also a reasonable argument to add that many of these armies are supported by or soup into very shooty IG armies with knights backing them up. To say that because a list had 3 smash captains in it is a melee army is a kind of disingenuous. The list isn't a melee list. it had 3 melee models, that could operate because one of them could break a fundamental rule of the game. Its also like saying Ynnari was a melee army, it wasn't. Yes, they ran the big blob of shining spears, but that wasn't the primary focus of the army. The army shot things to pieces and once all of the important bits were destroyed, they could send in the spears. But the spears weren't just a melee threat, they were more often than not a harrying force.
I don't know man, I haven't spoken to anyone who doesn't want to see melee made better in 9th. Even my most stalwart AM players all agree that melee has been pretty atrocious in 8th, and it needs a boost. I dont know if it needs "no fallback" levels of buffs, but they do need a buff.
Make no mistake, as I said shooting has been better than melee in 8th and we all want it to be better in 9th.
My argument is that 8th was already better than 7th for melee, so saying that No Fallback would be good under the current conditions because it was fine in 7th, is a huge mystake which could break the game.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
Yes, BUT - those mostly required the strongest units in the game to work or silly amounts of CP forced into one or two units. Others were exploiting times where most other people didn't have their codex and hadn't solved for those units. I think people want to see "medium level" melee armies work. Like the Possessed Bomb is so one-dimensional push these models forward yawn-fest.
I could say the same for most of the shooting lists that have been seen around. They all revolved around some stupid interaction, a clearly OP model (or faction) or stuff like that.
I have yet to see a "Medium level" shooting army reach top tables.
It can be fun and challenging to play, but the same is true for a fluffy melee list.
Spoletta wrote: Actually, melee has been succesful in 8th edition in pretty much all sauces at some point in time.
We had succesful horde melee armies (green tide).
We had succesful ultra elite melee armies (Demon brothers/Knights),
We had succesful melee armies based on stacking of buffs (Ynnari).
We had succesful melee armies based on deepstrikes (GSC and Assault centurions).
We had succesful melee armies based on fast shock units (Stealer shock).
We had succesful melee armies based on hero hammer (Shield captains and Smash Captains).
We had succesful melee armies based on slow footslogging protected models (Possessed bomb).
There has been less succesful melee lists than shooting lists, but surely there was no shortage of flavors for those.
In the context of the game, though, look at what had to happen to make them "good". under what we know now and what we know of 9th, I'd argue that of those lists all almost all changed in significant ways because of how broken the mechanics were.
If melee is on roughly equal footing, then these mechanics wouldn't be needed to make the armies functional. Instead, I think its very telling that all of these armies have to have some kind of some breaking mechanism to get them onto the table vs imperial soup and later SM 2.0 (iron hands and crimson fists).
Also, if we look at the worst armies, especially prior to codex 2.0, the worst armies in the game according to 40k stats were almost universally all melee armies, (or undeveloped armies like inquisition and such). I think its also a reasonable argument to add that many of these armies are supported by or soup into very shooty IG armies with knights backing them up. To say that because a list had 3 smash captains in it is a melee army is a kind of disingenuous. The list isn't a melee list. it had 3 melee models, that could operate because one of them could break a fundamental rule of the game. Its also like saying Ynnari was a melee army, it wasn't. Yes, they ran the big blob of shining spears, but that wasn't the primary focus of the army. The army shot things to pieces and once all of the important bits were destroyed, they could send in the spears. But the spears weren't just a melee threat, they were more often than not a harrying force.
I don't know man, I haven't spoken to anyone who doesn't want to see melee made better in 9th. Even my most stalwart AM players all agree that melee has been pretty atrocious in 8th, and it needs a boost. I dont know if it needs "no fallback" levels of buffs, but they do need a buff.
Make no mistake, as I said shooting has been better than melee in 8th and we all want it to be better in 9th.
My argument is that 8th was already better than 7th for melee, so saying that No Fallback would be good under the current conditions because it was fine in 7th, is a huge mystake which could break the game.
How is 8th edition better for melee than 7th specifically?
From my point of view melee ran into some considerable problems with the start of 8th edition.
The first was unlimited overwatch. There were units with hyper-effective overwatch that were near impossible to charge. At least in 7th edition you could cause that unit to expend all of its shooting into a sacrificial charging unit.
The next problem was the introduction of fallback. Enough said.
The third problem was removal sweeping advance. This made melee *lethal* against a lot of opponents. While Marines didn't suffer from this, they were at least elite enough that you could reasonably eliminate them.
The fourth problem is the escalation of fire power as the edition went on. It incentivised you to try and stay out of weapons range - completely the opposite of what melee armies want to do. This feed back into the overwatch problem as more units became effective with it - I saw a dramatic increase in middling strength low AP weapons. This was brutal for my Chaos Daemons, and my Space Wolves didn't fare much better either. I actually gave up on most of my melee elements in my Wolves lists because it just didn't work.
In 7th edition with D weapons, grav spam, scat bikes and similar cheese, being tabled turn 1 was really easy if you weren't playing some cheese (read: Death star) of your own.
Right now we complain about units which sometimes in particular conditions and on good targets can take out 50% of their point cost in a single shooting phase, which is an enormous amount.
In 7th a 50 point model could easily remove a 200 point model every shooting phase.
Tie this with casualties taken from the front and melee was simply impossible (outside of some death star).
Vehicles were 100% unplayable, so forget transports.
Let's not forget that if your unit didn't have pathfinder, it was even more difficult to reach the target.
Also, the charges had to go straight to the target and you couldn't play around with movement in melee.
I understand that many don't like the current situation of melee, but let's remove our nostalgia tainted glasses and be objective for a second. This is the best melee has been in the last 3 editions. I've played a lot of melee lists in 8th, and have won a lot. Nothing top level sure, but still much much more than I could ever do in 7th without using a Death Star.
Eldarain wrote: Tau having a ridiculous stunted design shouldn't hold back the game's core rules.
Tell that to the game designers, I'd be more than happy to have psychic or melee capabilities (or even decent movement across the board, not 8" on crisis suits).
They managed to write an horrible codex this edition, with a faction that works only thanks to the ridiculous shield drones.
You do realise that 8" isnt bad movement? especially not on a gun platform that flies.
Also,
H.B.M.C. wrote: GW: Hey Sisters players.
Sisters Players: Yeah?
GW: You know how the Psychic Awakening books have a host of new custom chapter/regiment/Knight House/etc. rules for the various factions, along with a list of new relics, warlord traits and -tons- of stratagems?
Sisters Players: We sure do!
GW: Well feth you. You get a Harlequin.
I mean, I thought being relegated to White Dwarf was bad, but at least the Harlis got some half-way decent rules.
Hey, harlequins finally get a model, why would they complain!
Hes gonna make a cool troupe master conversion for sure. Glad hes playable in Imperium but not in harlies (i hope hes gonna end up being playable in both armies somehow)
Eldarain wrote: Tau having a ridiculous stunted design shouldn't hold back the game's core rules.
Tell that to the game designers, I'd be more than happy to have psychic or melee capabilities (or even decent movement across the board, not 8" on crisis suits).
They managed to write an horrible codex this edition, with a faction that works only thanks to the ridiculous shield drones.
You do realise that 8" isnt bad movement? especially not on a gun platform that flies.
Also,
Tau is still a mobile army, the problem is that the optimal build with them is Riptides + drones, so everyone castles up with them.
with tools like mont'ka i'm really suprised to see tau stay as static as they are right now.
Congratulations the only units you see out of those is riptudes and Hammerheads is for a very simple reason they lack the range to be able to shoot without being automatically charged next turn.
Hammerheads arw fragile like most vehicals in 8th edition as they get malled by mid strength spam.
In 7th edition with D weapons, grav spam, scat bikes and similar cheese, being tabled turn 1 was really easy if you weren't playing some cheese (read: Death star) of your own.
I agree with the sentiment - but this didn't chime with my experience in 2nd. Tabling was common - probably the typical way of winning a game certainly in the second half of the edition - but I don't think I ever saw anyone get fully tabled in the first turn.
I think the bigger point is that assault lists in older editions were usually death stars relying on invisibility and ward saves. If say we were in a world where you could make an assault unit only be hit on 6s and pack a 2++ rerollable save, assault would probably be the main concern in this game too. But I think it was pretty universally agreed that such rules were terrible and should never see the light of day again.
I think the real problem with assault is that its not that interactive. Playing say GSC for instance, it often feels like you are just rolling dice. Which... obviously you are - but it feels like you can't do anything to really conceal that fact. You are not making decisions to stack the odds of those dice in your favour - that's done in list building.
And so sometimes you will be lucky - and make all your charges - and usually surround/crush the enemy (obviously luck can intervene here - but the odds are now stacked in your favour).
And other times, you will be unlucky on those charges, so your units can do precisely nothing, and just get trivially wiped from the table next turn (unless they are really unlucky).
Statistically if you play enough games you are going to experience both. You should expect to fail 3 successive 7" charge rolls every 14 times the scenario plays out. Can't be bothered to calculate 2 fails out of 3 - but its going to be higher.
Broken down to extremes I guess shooting is like this too - but usually its stacked so much, that the luck has to really tell against you. Shooting is also less all or nothing - as you get really good results to make up for previous bad ones. By contrast rolling a double 6 for one unit to charge, will rarely make up for 2 or so other units failing.
Which is basically why fall back is such a problem. You have this huge chance to fail - so if you connect, you have to make it count. So we have tripointing and all the rest of it. But if people can now just wander off - even if they lose 1/6th of the unit - its probably another nail in assault armies (points and other rules depending). You are just making them statistically less likely to succeed.
Hrm, firepower in general has definitely risen in 8th overall. 7E had some definite outliers, but the available average of firepower has definitely risen. We've seen far more firepower on the level of 7E Scatterbike units diffuse throughout the game in general, and we didn't have basic troops units that could shoot 4 shots each or get rerolls to everything with enough AP to turn a squad with infantry bolt weapons into more effective tank killers than quadlas Predators.
There's absolutely melee that works in 8E, but there's a lot that doesn't also, and most of what does work does so because it's got a gimmicky rule or ability, while many units that in previous editions were decent melee units or melee capable generalists simply do not function in such a role now (e.g. Kroot, basic CSM's, etc).
Congratulations the only units you see out of those is riptudes and Hammerheads is for a very simple reason they lack the range to be able to shoot without being automatically charged next turn.
Hammerheads arw fragile like most vehicals in 8th edition as they get malled by mid strength spam.
Ghostkeels can get in close now and use fusion without stressing about getting tied up in melee forever.
Maybe our concept of melee should transition more to CQC? Though The GK is about the only in codex option. If Battlesuits were 'Monster' they might have a play.
I know the way I play my Daemon Engines will get flipped on their head. I might actually use the daemon jaws of my FF, the heldrake won't mind being in longer combats, and the Defiler isn't going to be waffling between moving to combat and shooting.
Congratulations the only units you see out of those is riptudes and Hammerheads is for a very simple reason they lack the range to be able to shoot without being automatically charged next turn.
Hammerheads arw fragile like most vehicals in 8th edition as they get malled by mid strength spam.
so the problem isn't their mobility, its the lack of range then?
which makes crying about their mobility a non valid point because tau have highly mobile units.
Congratulations the only units you see out of those is riptudes and Hammerheads is for a very simple reason they lack the range to be able to shoot without being automatically charged next turn.
Hammerheads arw fragile like most vehicals in 8th edition as they get malled by mid strength spam.
so the problem isn't their mobility, its the lack of range then?
which makes crying about their mobility a non valid point because tau have highly mobile units.
I never said mobility was their issue, it's that the whole mobile gunline with short range weapons doesn't work when you have armies built around yeeting units into CC from 20-30 inches away in 1 turn 90%+ makes the short range mobile gunline concept unworkable.
CC is horrific to balance with those sort of threat ranges as it has no counterplay.
I suspect that maybe why primaris marines have such silly ranges on their weapons.
Congratulations the only units you see out of those is riptudes and Hammerheads is for a very simple reason they lack the range to be able to shoot without being automatically charged next turn.
Hammerheads arw fragile like most vehicals in 8th edition as they get malled by mid strength spam.
so the problem isn't their mobility, its the lack of range then?
which makes crying about their mobility a non valid point because tau have highly mobile units.
I never said mobility was their issue, it's that the whole mobile gunline with short range weapons doesn't work when you have armies built around yeeting units into CC from 20-30 inches away in 1 turn 90%+ makes the short range mobile gunline concept unworkable.
CC is horrific to balance with those sort of threat ranges as it has no counterplay.
I suspect that maybe why primaris marines have such silly ranges on their weapons.
the thing is that melee units need to be able to reach the enemy before dying, so the only playable ones are the ones that have a good delivery method.
So its a vicious circle, you cant play short range stuff in tau so melee delivery need to be strong as it is
Congratulations the only units you see out of those is riptudes and Hammerheads is for a very simple reason they lack the range to be able to shoot without being automatically charged next turn.
Hammerheads arw fragile like most vehicals in 8th edition as they get malled by mid strength spam.
so the problem isn't their mobility, its the lack of range then?
which makes crying about their mobility a non valid point because tau have highly mobile units.
I never said mobility was their issue, it's that the whole mobile gunline with short range weapons doesn't work when you have armies built around yeeting units into CC from 20-30 inches away in 1 turn 90%+ makes the short range mobile gunline concept unworkable.
CC is horrific to balance with those sort of threat ranges as it has no counterplay.
I suspect that maybe why primaris marines have such silly ranges on their weapons.
the thing is that melee units need to be able to reach the enemy before dying, so the only playable ones are the ones that have a good delivery method.
So its a vicious circle, you cant play short range stuff in tau so melee delivery need to be strong as it is
Tau aren't the only ones with long range basic troops anymore, Primaris are the same range.
Heck Tau dont even shoot the best anymore, Admech, Guard and Marines 2.0 all do better gunline than Tau. Marines also with the same list are no slouches in Melee either.
Tau play keepaway as best they can while using drones to play attritional warfare. (Which people keep demanding are nerfed, because balance means their army should be better than everyones)
Personal Experiance with Tau is you lose turn 1 &2 always, even out in 3/4 and have to win the game turns 5&6.
The fact that units have 90% success rate with turn 1 DZ to DZ charges with nothing the defender can do about that, has gutted the design space for slower melee and a bunch of other codex's playstyles.
The game is go first and kill it or get wrapped and loose, or go first charge wrap and rinse repeat. that's bad design as it's no fun for either side.
Wouldn"t a lack of Fallback only encourage Gunlines further? If you just get fethed the moment you're in melee wouldn't you be more likely to just hang back in your deployment zone and avoid your opponent as much as possible rather than striking forward and fighting it out at shorter ranges?
Changing the way objectives work and points are scored in such a way it forces you out of your deployment zone is a much better way to nerf gunlines than just nuking fallback.
Yeah, 8th edition got into a really bad spot by constantly inflating shooting damage and then responding by inflating melee movement.
This is why I'm not optimistic about melee vs shooting balance in 9th. Without going back and removing all that movement stuff, I don't see how they are going to restore melee to a working state without overpowering all the units that can now make 40" inch charges.
MalfunctBot wrote: Wouldn"t a lack of Fallback only encourage Gunlines further? If you just get fethed the moment you're in melee wouldn't you be more likely to just hang back in your deployment zone and avoid your opponent as much as possible rather than striking forward and fighting it out at shorter ranges?
Changing the way objectives work and points are scored in such a way it forces you out of your deployment zone is a much better way to nerf gunlines than just nuking fallback.
Far more impactful terrain rules, more defensive mechanics (not stratagems but actual core mechanics that many units can do), reduce the effectiveness of blobbing (or punishing it with attacks that factor in model density of an area.... old school blast weapons), and overall greatly reduce the effectiveness of all combat is better at de-incentivizing gun lines / castling. Problem is that the classic Tau strategy of winning the objective game by total annihilation is basically the best strategy outside of some very convoluted missions that attempt to downplay the value of killing everything.
In 7th edition with D weapons, grav spam, scat bikes and similar cheese, being tabled turn 1 was really easy if you weren't playing some cheese (read: Death star) of your own.
Right now we complain about units which sometimes in particular conditions and on good targets can take out 50% of their point cost in a single shooting phase, which is an enormous amount.
In 7th a 50 point model could easily remove a 200 point model every shooting phase.
Tie this with casualties taken from the front and melee was simply impossible (outside of some death star).
Vehicles were 100% unplayable, so forget transports.
Let's not forget that if your unit didn't have pathfinder, it was even more difficult to reach the target.
Also, the charges had to go straight to the target and you couldn't play around with movement in melee.
I understand that many don't like the current situation of melee, but let's remove our nostalgia tainted glasses and be objective for a second. This is the best melee has been in the last 3 editions.
I've played a lot of melee lists in 8th, and have won a lot. Nothing top level sure, but still much much more than I could ever do in 7th without using a Death Star.
I disagree about your statement regarding firepower. There were a few changes that increased it's effectiveness. The first being the to wound chart. Guardsmen were getting twice as many wounds against a unit like Thunder Cav in 8th over 7th edition. Bolter weaponry became more effective against Dreadnaughts (SW's have some good CC ones). This is compounded by Bolter Discipline as the edition wore on. If your meta was spammed D weapons, Eldar cheese, etc, I can understand you saying that fire power decreased, but that wasn't mine.
I won't disagree that the change to where you take casualties from was an improvement.
In regards to vehicles, I actually had great success in playing an Ironwolves list at the end of 7th. Lots of vehicles (10+ rhinos, razorbacks, etc). But it was a skew list that overwhelmed my opponents anti-tank. But they certainty weren't 100% unplayable.
It appears that our experiences have been different however as I feel there were considerably more viable melee units and builds in 7th than those that currently exist in 8th.
I wanted to say two things:
First as someone else just said removing fall back would just mean more shooty oriented armies would stay back and just destroy everything before it comes close encouraging castles (i play guard in a dynamic way getting close with infantry and using orders, that would be impossible if fallback was removed).
Secondly i hear mentioned time and again “yeah the unit falling back is not the problem the rest of the army wiping it out is” and i want to ask, is your point that a single unit should withstand an entire army? Where exactly is the rest of YOUR army? People shooting at a uni is people not shooting at others.
Kaneda88 wrote: I wanted to say two things:
First as someone else just said removing fall back would just mean more shooty oriented armies would stay back and just destroy everything before it comes close encouraging castles (i play guard in a dynamic way getting close with infantry and using orders, that would be impossible if fallback was removed).
Secondly i hear mentioned time and again “yeah the unit falling back is not the problem the rest of the army wiping it out is” and i want to ask, is your point that a single unit should withstand an entire army? Where exactly is the rest of YOUR army? People shooting at a uni is people not shooting at others.
Kaneda88 wrote: I wanted to say two things:
First as someone else just said removing fall back would just mean more shooty oriented armies would stay back and just destroy everything before it comes close encouraging castles (i play guard in a dynamic way getting close with infantry and using orders, that would be impossible if fallback was removed).
Secondly i hear mentioned time and again “yeah the unit falling back is not the problem the rest of the army wiping it out is” and i want to ask, is your point that a single unit should withstand an entire army? Where exactly is the rest of YOUR army? People shooting at a uni is people not shooting at others.
no, that's not the point.
That’s... eloquent. What is the rest of your army doing while the entire enemy army is destroying one of your units?
Kaneda88 wrote: I wanted to say two things:
First as someone else just said removing fall back would just mean more shooty oriented armies would stay back and just destroy everything before it comes close encouraging castles (i play guard in a dynamic way getting close with infantry and using orders, that would be impossible if fallback was removed).
Secondly i hear mentioned time and again “yeah the unit falling back is not the problem the rest of the army wiping it out is” and i want to ask, is your point that a single unit should withstand an entire army? Where exactly is the rest of YOUR army? People shooting at a uni is people not shooting at others.
no, that's not the point.
That’s... eloquent. What is the rest of your army doing while the entire enemy army is destroying one of your units?
Well, they're also getting destroyed because the units they were engaged in cc with also fell back. Or they were chewed up trying to make it across the board. Or failed their charges. The point is cc armies have to put in the work to get there and then gun lines can just waltz out of combat with no penalties or effort. That's not an even playing field.
I'm just explaining this on behalf of players of other factions btw. I play Night Lords. You're not running away from us unless we let you.
I've always thought it's very weird that you have to roll 2d6 to charge somebody, but you can move your entire movement value with no randomness at all when disengaging.
yukishiro1 wrote: I've always thought it's very weird that you have to roll 2d6 to charge somebody, but you can move your entire movement value with no randomness at all when disengaging.
How else would one forge a narrative without random charge distances?
"And then they were upon us; these monstrous xenos beasts. Hissing and snarling, multiple limbs that ended in razor sharp claws or talons. Teeth as long as rifle barrels. They were terrifying, and I saw the blood drain from our commanders face as they drew near. We had been firing upon them for what seemed like days, yet they always got closer, one step at a time. As each one of the monstrosities fell, another took its place. They were endless."
"Finally the order came - fix bayonets, prepare for the charge - and I knew our doom had arrived. At once the entire line of purple and white aliens sped towards us; their speed and vigour renewed at the thought of fresh kills. We braced, as for some reason only one squad could fire in response these days, and awaited the inevitable."
"Yet it never arrived, for the howling masses had stopped just short. The frustration through the Tyranids was so palpable I almost thought I heard the Hive Mind scream 'All I needed was a 6!!!', but I pushed the feeling aside, and readied my weapon for the next shot."
Kaneda88 wrote: First as someone else just said removing fall back would just mean more shooty oriented armies would stay back and just destroy everything before it comes close encouraging castles (i play guard in a dynamic way getting close with infantry and using orders, that would be impossible if fallback was removed).
I play Guard too. Take Bullgryns. Take Crusaders. Use terrain to your advantage to keep melee enemies at range. Use alpha strike units like Veterans to kill potential chargers at close range. Space out your troops, and accept that if a 40pt Infantry Squad gets engaged in melee, it's going to die.
This is how we did it in every other edition. The current state of affairs is a very recent development, and it's a brainless way to play. There is little skill involved in positioning screens to intercept chargers, then falling back without penalty so you can shoot some more.
If anything, the way it is now greatly encourages castles. You don't need to heavily space out because you only need to fall back half an inch to be able to shoot, without worrying about a unit being able to Sweeping Advance into your lines.
Kaneda88 wrote: Secondly i hear mentioned time and again “yeah the unit falling back is not the problem the rest of the army wiping it out is” and i want to ask, is your point that a single unit should withstand an entire army? Where exactly is the rest of YOUR army? People shooting at a uni is people not shooting at others.
Here's the rest of the army:
-Also in combat, and also getting the same enemy-fell-back treatment.
-Dead, because the army had to spend two turns getting shot up before they made it here.
-Waiting for another try because they whiffed the charge.
-Off on an objective, because melee units have to choose between playing the objective and contributing to the fight.
Being able to inflict a lot of damage (fighting on both turns) and avoid getting shot are the only incentives to get into melee in the first place. Shooting has the advantage in every single other respect. In prior editions, getting an assault army into melee with a gunline was a gamble, but if you made it there with a significant proportion of your force intact, you had the upper hand. Now it's just suicide.
And no, a single unit should not be able to withstand an entire army. But unless there's some way for melee units to stay in melee, then for every round they get to fight in combat, the enemy gets a round to shoot, and a round of swinging back, and a round of Overwatch (at least that's going away somewhat), on top of the 1-3 rounds they already had to shoot unopposed.
The current meta of successful melee units being able to make 24+" turn 1 charges or Deep Strike charges and wipe out whatever they hit is entirely a product of the current melee mechanics. Units that take casualties over several turns of hoofing it up the field, or can't inflict a lot of damage in one assault phase, can never win the attrition game against an enemy that never stops shooting them. It's only going to get worse if Fall Back isn't changed, as more and more melee units are given mobility or lethality buffs to make it viable.
yukishiro1 wrote: I've always thought it's very weird that you have to roll 2d6 to charge somebody, but you can move your entire movement value with no randomness at all when disengaging.
Because GW decided they wanted to add more swing to charges. Back in 5th Edition, there was no overwatch and charges were always 6", but you couldn't pre-measure anything in the game. Then in 6th they changed charges to 2d6", added overwatch, causalities from the closest model, and premeasuring to the game. This resulted in more variation in the success rate of charges, which made the game less clinical in execution.
yukishiro1 wrote: I've always thought it's very weird that you have to roll 2d6 to charge somebody, but you can move your entire movement value with no randomness at all when disengaging.
Because GW decided they wanted to add more swing to charges. Back in 5th Edition, there was no overwatch and charges were always 6", but you couldn't pre-measure anything in the game. Then in 6th they changed charges to 2d6", added overwatch, causalities from the closest model, and premeasuring to the game. This resulted in more variation in the success rate of charges, which made the game less clinical in execution.
Well right, but the point is: why not apply that to other things? Why just charge distance? Why not have fall back variable too?
For that matter, why not make guns variable range? Bolters could be 18+2d6, you don't roll until you fire. That would make the game less clinical too!
Vespis have 18inch weapons
Piranhas still have 18 inch range weapons same issue.
Devilish have 18 inch burst cannon and is the Tau equivalents of a rhino, still doesnt solve the issue of 24+ reliable charges making the range of engagement far to short.
Those "options" still have the same issue of having to be in Reliable charge range being longer than most infantry weapons means their isnt options as they just dont work.
What I'd like to see for tau is some aggressive play, not just the typical gunline tactic. Some orks units like bustas or gitz have 24'' range, need a transport and are fragile as hell for their points cost but they do work with the appropriate list. Play piranhas and vespids aggressively, move with devilfish and then screen the units you don't want to assault with dismbarked troops. The marjority of the armies have just a few dedicated melee units so a skillful tau player should know how to pressure the opponent while being safe from charges, it's not like all the enemy units are eager to assault. I'd like to seem more infantry AM dudes deployed from chimeras as well.
In 7th edition with D weapons, grav spam, scat bikes and similar cheese, being tabled turn 1 was really easy if you weren't playing some cheese (read: Death star) of your own.
It's basically true for eldar, but many other armies have definitely increased their firepower, both in dice rolling and lethality. For competitive orks is something like 3x or 4x more firepower than they used to have.
About melee? All the armies I played in this edition (Orks, SW and my former Drukhari army) were way more lethal in melee in 7th than in 8th.
Yeah play them aggressively, great advise because even catachan guard out Melee Tau, aswell as doing a pretty good job of out shooting them, same with Marines.
Yes lets screen the transport with infantry that oh yeah can't get out after it moves.
And i disagree maybe in a more casual setting peoole take mixed armies, BA, Nids, orks all tend to go hard on having the ability to make multiple turn 1 or turn 2 Deepstrike charges with high success rates.
Also even primaris marines pose enough of a threat that playing the way you suggest with those units is a guaranteed way to loose.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah play them aggressively, great advise because even catachan guard out Melee Tau, aswell as doing a pretty good job of out shooting them, same with Marines.
Yes lets screen the transport with infantry that oh yeah can't get out after it moves.
And i disagree maybe in a more casual setting peoole take mixed armies, BA, Nids, orks all tend to go hard on having the ability to make multiple turn 1 or turn 2 Deepstrike charges with high success rates.
Also even primaris marines pose enough of a threat that playing the way you suggest with those units is a guaranteed way to loose.
You misunderstood me, probably my bad. I'm not convincing people on playing tau like this, I'd like rules to change in order to let tau or AM playing aggressively as an alternative to boring gunlines. As you said tau have lots of low ranged shooting units, and they will unlikely see the table if gunline style is the only solution.
Ice_can wrote: Yeah play them aggressively, great advise because even catachan guard out Melee Tau, aswell as doing a pretty good job of out shooting them, same with Marines.
Yes lets screen the transport with infantry that oh yeah can't get out after it moves.
And i disagree maybe in a more casual setting peoole take mixed armies, BA, Nids, orks all tend to go hard on having the ability to make multiple turn 1 or turn 2 Deepstrike charges with high success rates.
Also even primaris marines pose enough of a threat that playing the way you suggest with those units is a guaranteed way to loose.
You misunderstood me, probably my bad. I'm not convincing people on playing tau like this, I'd like rules to change in order to let tau or AM playing aggressively as an alternative to boring gunlines. As you said tau have lots of low ranged shooting units, and they will unlikely see the table if gunline style is the only solution.
Yeah they were supposed to be a higher mobility short range shooting list that could hit hard but had to get danger close ss they were vulnerable in CC.
Big risk, big reward list.
Over the years GW just keeps making other changes that results in that play style being decidedly not the smart way to play the army.
They keep mucking up the risk vrs reward,
Regular Fallback for 1 
