Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Weazel wrote:
In general CC got weaker (no +1A on charge, no sweeping advances, harder to hit with powerfists etc), which is fine.

I wouldn't say that these are necessarily problems; no extra attack but you get to strike first, plus with the way Morale works a powerful combat unit should actually be inflicting more losses on an enemy now overall. Plus you can also shoot pistols, if you have them. Power fists being harder to hit is an alternative to striking last, so overall it's better IMO as less likely to be killed before striking, plus with Weapon Skill now being a flat roll a lot of units can hit very easily; if you match up marines vs marines for example, before they'd only hit on 4's due to equal WS values, but now both hit on 3+ as standard.


Granted, fall back is a bit of an annoyance; my preferred fixes would be to limit it to D6" without the Fly or Vehicle keyword, and to allow enemy units a free round of attacks hitting on 6's against one unit that does a Fall Back away from them. Basically it'd be the combat equivalent of Overwatch.

There's also the Wych special rule, which forces your opponent to win a roll-off before they can fall back. That could be extended to all combats, and give the Wyches a bonus or a re-roll to it instead.

 John Prins wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:
I haven't been able to fully accept how units can freely disengage while opposing units simply watch it happen.

I think of it this way; the models that died in the last CC phase (or morale phase) heroically held back the enemy while everybody else legged it.

Abstraction on top of abstraction on top of...
Lots of imagination record keeping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 acord wrote:
This may be a bit of topic' but I will share my experience anyway.

So, me and my friend played a game.
Me, Khorne demons VS my friends' chaos slaneesh marines.

I got so brutally bend over that we quickly realise there were something wrong
Now the reason why it was so difficult for me to be in control of the game, was due to fall back rule.

I was almost 100% melee army, while he was almost 100% range. (1000pts vs 1000pts)

Here's the thing, I charge, I mange only to kill a few, in his turn, he does a fall back with his units, on this turn, on the movement phase he takes the closest units that are available, lock on and shot. In assault phase, he charges with a troop into my units and make sure to hold my units' locket there. And then repeat in his second turn.

All my heavy units were downed at round 3, bloodthrone and bloodthirster.
It was impossible to get close to his heavy units
So, my conclusion' he can do twice the amount of damage by go along with this rule.

The battle was over on round 4, I lost 90% of my units, while his side' he has 85% left standing.

I will be honest about one thing,
is that we did not play objective. Just annihilation, so no wonder.

But, my thoughts are either' the fall back rules have to change, or khorne demons and other heavily close combat teams(codex) are given some ability to counter the fall back rule.

Unless you people have some tactical ideas to share that can give me some advantage, I be very happy to hear them out.

This seems to be a problem.
So, the sweet spot is 36-48" weapons ranges,
with lots of infiltrators to push deepstrikers back into the middle of the table.
Sure.
Reivers plus hellblasters maybe?
Intercessors or whoever those jump cats are to leap in to the breach and plug the gaps?

As an ork player in a tau world I have been looking for a way to de-nerf melee in 8e for a while. I started playing in 6e so I have happy memories of sweeping advances wiping out entire units, and unhappy ultrasmurfs who were unable to disengage because their moral was so high. Enter 8e....

So far this is the only (good) idea I've come up with: when an enemy unit falls back, they may move up to their maximum movement. afterwards, you may attempt to charge them as if you were in the fight phase. the targeted unit does not fire overwatch.

This actually solves multiple problems in one fell swoop. No more vehicle tarpitting as almost all vehicles can get out of realistic charge range in a single move. In contrast, infantry will be much less likely, but will still be able to potentially escape. The only real question is whether the enemy should be able to advance or not. if they can the odds of successfully charging them go from almost 3/4, to roughly 1/3. a very significant change. if not, it would honestly be no worse for the defender than in 7e, but still it is something to consider. I personally say no advance. with their charge re-roll orks can pull off a 9 inch charge about half the time, other factions....not so much.

 acord wrote:
This may be a bit of topic' but I will share my experience anyway.

So, me and my friend played a game.
Me, Khorne demons VS my friends' chaos slaneesh marines.

I got so brutally bend over that we quickly realise there were something wrong
Now the reason why it was so difficult for me to be in control of the game, was due to fall back rule.

I was almost 100% melee army, while he was almost 100% range. (1000pts vs 1000pts)

Here's the thing, I charge, I mange only to kill a few, in his turn, he does a fall back with his units, on this turn, on the movement phase he takes the closest units that are available, lock on and shot. In assault phase, he charges with a troop into my units and make sure to hold my units' locket there. And then repeat in his second turn.

All my heavy units were downed at round 3, bloodthrone and bloodthirster.
It was impossible to get close to his heavy units
So, my conclusion' he can do twice the amount of damage by go along with this rule.

The battle was over on round 4, I lost 90% of my units, while his side' he has 85% left standing.

I will be honest about one thing,
is that we did not play objective. Just annihilation, so no wonder.

But, my thoughts are either' the fall back rules have to change, or khorne demons and other heavily close combat teams(codex) are given some ability to counter the fall back rule.

Unless you people have some tactical ideas to share that can give me some advantage, I be very happy to hear them out.

I run a pure mono khorne daemons army aswell. Might i suggest Skarbrand.

He makes khorne daemons actually pretty decent, also is good at making sure 1-2 models stay alive during his charge so he can charge again next turn.

So..... I find it funny how people who use shooting armies are all in arms about people nerfing fall back, when you have to consider that the relationship between CC and Shooting has been so imbalanced for a long time.

Shooting has always been a surefire way of putting wounds to a target at range, while melee is a cluster of randomization that might kill the unit you were charging.

I saw in one of the comments before how they were frustrated at melee units killing all but one dude on their side. Well guess what? That was sometimes the only legit strategy that CC oriented armies had. You cannot blame a person using legitimate tactics in a shooting heavy meta.

People seem to think that fall back is 'the great equalizer' against those 'scary' CC armies. Well i like to say that is a load of . Over watch was a more lopsided rule against CC armies, and that lead to moments where a CC unit had to take upwards of 2-3 shooting phases before they got into CC. Add in a mechanic that makes those units completely exposed to your army for another shooting and it's no challenge whatsoever. The shooting army will win almost all the time (Bar from some 'miracle' dice rolling)

Fall back in this form is a completely low risk tactic for shooting based armies, while crippling CC based armies. And no matter how many 'mortal wounds' or how much damage you do to the unit that is running away, you will never address the actual main issue of the fall back mechanic.

Simply put, the act of exposing those high priority CC units to your ENTIRE armies shooting cripples any chances of a CC army actually playing decent in this edition. <<THIS IS THE PROBLEM. NOTHING ELSE

With that being said, one solution which is actually a viable and yet still doesn't make the same problem, is that the fall back mechanic be done during the owning players fight phase (or movement if they have FLY). with the stipulation that they can advance during this fallback

This makes it so that a unit has a fairly decent chance of getting out of the combat and not get re charged, while actually making the falling back player actually think about the entire army and how they will try and contain the unit. Because i rarely see people actually move their units away from the CC person when they get the chance, rather relying on that sweet fall back mechanic to shoot them instead. This will incentivize them to either fall back as a army or stand their ground and hope for the best.

The fall back mechanic should be a risk/ reward mechanic, not something people are incentivized to use all the time>

Remember, this is a game with effective guns in it. Shooting should dominate over hitting people with pointy sticks. The solution is to stop taking pure-melee armies, not to hand out melee buffs so that pure-melee armies can survive despite their appallingly poor strategic choices. Locking units in combat as protection from shooting is an example of anti-fluff exploits of a badly functioning rule system, not something that should be preserved.

If that's true then, assault units should be super duper cheap. Just sayin.

Martel732 wrote:
If that's true then, assault units should be super duper cheap. Just sayin.

Nope. If they're super cheap then you just have horde melee armies that are powerful. Assault units should be weak and limited, maybe a squad or two you in your entire army at most.

I disagree completely. A unit's point value should be directly proportional to combat value. In your vision, melee units must be cheap to compsensate for their lack of efficacy. Period.

Melee horde is powerful. Go play starcraft and tell me zergling surrounds don't work.

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree completely. A unit's point value should be directly proportional to combat value. In your vision, melee units must be cheap to compsensate for their lack of efficacy. Period.

No, because if a melee unit is cheap then it encourages you to take them. The whole point is to make melee units overpriced relative to their limited combat value so there is a strong disincentive to take them as a significant part of your army. If you find that they are priced at an appealing level and you want to take more than, say, a single 5-man assault squad in a 3000 point army, then something is wrong.

Melee horde is powerful. Go play starcraft and tell me zergling surrounds don't work.

That kind of nonsense should not exist in 40k.

I'll continue to disagree with you across the board. 40K is retro-future space barbarism. If anything, the ranged weapons should be ineffective.

Starcraft is a much better game than 40K, so I wouldn't exactly call surrounds "nonsense". Movement and timing matters in that game. Not this one.

Martel732 wrote:
I'll continue to disagree with you across the board. 40K is retro-future space barbarism. If anything, the ranged weapons should be ineffective.

Not really. 40k is Starship Troopers with more space-Jesus. Melee only "works" because of the IGOUGO turn structure allowing you to charge at a unit before it can move away and the fact that distances are not scaled to 28mm. Have a game of simultaneous activation on an actual 28mm-scale table and melee combat will probably never happen.

Starcraft is a much better game than 40K, so I wouldn't exactly call surrounds "nonsense". Movement and timing matters in that game. Not this one.

Well, that's a pretty low standard given how bad 40k is. But aside from Starcraft's flaws (emphasizing clicks per second and compensating for interface design over actual strategy) it's a stupid thing from a fluff point of view.

There's infinitely more strategy in any game with temporal considerations and costs. Being able to flop super heavies onto the table with no counterplay is total BS. I'll take being able to rush the Eldar base if I scout out that they are going for Wraithknights. No such luck in this game.

40K is in no way Starship Troopers in execution. Starship troopers was science fiction. 40K is just fiction. There's no science at all.

40K's crunch lines up so badly with their fluff that the fluff might as well not exist. So I think that's a non-factor as well.

Martel732 wrote:
There's infinitely more strategy in any game with temporal considerations and costs. Being able to flop super heavies onto the table with no counterplay is total BS. I'll take being able to rush the Eldar base if I scout out that they are going for Wraithknights. No such luck in this game.

Sorry, but Starcraft is a bad game. The moment clicks per second is presented as a relevant skill it's a concession that the game is trash. The existence of other strategy doesn't change the fact that a huge part of winning at Starcraft is literally how fast you can click buttons and compensate for a interface designed to test your clicks per second.

Also, superheavies have plenty of counterplay in 40k. In fact, most superheavies are pretty weak.

40K is in no way Starship Troopers in execution.

40k space marines are literally Starship Troopers space marines with more space-Jesus and chainsaws instead of tactical nukes.

I think the world at large has definitely outvoted you on the Starcraft thing

There are several tourney winners who have at least partially transcended APM by build order strategies.

"Also, superheavies have plenty of counterplay in 40k. In fact, most superheavies are pretty weak. "

I can't stop them from showing up by exploiting a temporal cost. To me, that's no counterplay. At this point, I don't want to see a Wraithknight ever gain. Or a baneblade.

Martel732 wrote:
I can't stop them from showing up by exploiting a temporal cost. To me, that's no counterplay. At this point, I don't want to see a Wraithknight ever gain. Or a baneblade.

So what you actually mean is "superheavies, like every unit in 40k, have no temporal cost because you bring your entire army at the start of the game", not "superheavies have no counterplay". Zerg rushing the enemy base (god, what a stupid concept base building is) before they can build a superheavy is not the only thing that is counterplay.

There are several tourney winners who have at least partially transcended APM by build order strategies.

The fact that partially transcending APM is supposed to be an impressive feat is the concession that Starcraft is a trash game. The fact that the thing that lets them beat APM is build orders, not anything resembling battlefield tactics, is just highlighting the absurdity of it all.

Each model in the unit falling back rolls a dice, take a mortal wound on a 6. Units with bigger size keywords take additional mortal wounds, vehicles d3, behemoths d6 or whatever.

Sure its a trash game. You win.

In a game where daemons actually blink right beside you with massive melee weapons. The fact your saying shooting should be predominant is hillarious to say the least.

You know, fluff wise, khorne daemons actually can perma cast blink? Play space marine, that is actually the best description of how bloodletters actually fight normal armies.

Also, shooting is useless when the armour most people are rocking around is designed to shrug off RPG rounds. What the heck are bullets supposed to do to that.

In a setting where the average fighting range is 10-20 meters. Having a gun is actually the bad choice. But sure.... play with these rules, knowing that CC could actually be much worse

On another note, adding the mortal wounds doesn't address the problem of the fall back mechanic, if anything it makes it worse.

The problem is that falling back leaves the unit in question completely exposed to shooting from everything else in the army. Killing off the unit will do nothing to address this problem

Mchaagen wrote:
A rules proposal to change Fall Back;

Units can attempt to pursue enemy units attempting to Fall Back. Both players roll off when a unit that is attempting to Fall Back is pursued. If the pursuing players' score is equal or higher [or the advantage could go to the falling back unit if this is too much of a detriment] the unit attempting to Fall Back is caught. Roll a D6 for a unit that has been caught, on a 1 nothing, on a 2-6 it suffers D3 mortal wounds [I might change or remove this extra damage entirely for initial play-testing]. If a pursuing unit is caught, both units stay in place. If a unit is not caught it may move its movement distance with the normal restrictions.

Additional rules change; 'Tank' (non-flyer, non-walker) units may still fire at a reduced BS [hit on 6's] if within 1" of an enemy.

Would this work?

---Edit---
Updated to incorporate additional feedback.

Good idea but I think it would be more fun if the units did not stay in place. Maybe move the fall back unit first and then the other unit rolls. If they succed they can immediately make a charge move. If both units get to move, no further mortal wound mechanic is needed.

Since my last post to this thread I've been using some house rules for falling back like so:

• When a unit falls back, any enemy units that are left behind with no other targets within 1" may consolidate up to D6". This move may be used to move within 1" of enemy units in which case the pursuing unit is considered to have charged that turn.
  
• Units with Movement 7" or better may roll two D6 for pursuit, discarding the lowest.
  
• Ranged attacks (excluding Pistols) may not be fired at targets within 3" of a friendly unit.

The idea here is that since most Infantry can only move 6" max, then there is always a 1 in 6 chance of catching them with a fresh charge, and a 1 in 2 chance of keeping within the new 3" safety umbrella against possible friendly fire. You also have a chance to use consolidation to get into better cover instead, or head towards an objective etc.

At the same time, even when you do get a good pursuit roll, pursuing means being pulled in a direction of the enemy's choosing, so there's a trade off here versus units that can prevent Fall Back entirely (like Dark Eldar Wyches).

This also requires you to use Fall Back more tactically; you can prevent pursuit by ensuring an enemy still has targets within 1", for example leaving Characters or weak units behind to let something more valuable escape.

It's worked well in games where I've tried it; the 3" friendly-fire umbrella is still very short to the point that it's useful mainly for pursuing and not much else. The only odd case is when an enemy is a little within the umbrella (i.e- can't shoot non-Pistols, but isn't in combat), and so can move out of the umbrella, shoot with non-Pistol weapons, then charge right back in, but not many units can do this to an extent that it's a problem.

On the whole however it makes Fall Back much more tactical, and requires more thought in how you set it up to either prevent pursuit, or bring in enough pistols to hit the enemy you're fleeing from if it manages to stay within 3".

 Haravikk wrote:

• When a unit falls back, any enemy units that are left behind with no other targets within 1" may consolidate up to D6". This move may be used to move within 1" of enemy units in which case the pursuing unit is considered to have charged that turn.
  
• Units with Movement 7" or better may roll two D6 for pursuit, discarding the lowest.
  
• Ranged attacks (excluding Pistols) may not be fired at targets within 3" of a friendly unit.

What if the unit could consolidate it's movement value minus D6? So a unit that moves 6" can move consolidate anywhere from 0"-5" with 5" letting them get back into close combat. It's not likely but still possible. Then, a unit with 12" movement is basically guaranteed to run down much slower units, forcing you to fight them or stall them at least.

Though, I would definitely allow vehicles to fire into close combat like how superheavies work. Why should close combat stop a gunner from firing? They could actually be good screens for a change, since they are supposed to be protecting the rest of the army.

 Haravikk wrote:
Since my last post to this thread I've been using some house rules for falling back like so:

• When a unit falls back, any enemy units that are left behind with no other targets within 1" may consolidate up to D6". This move may be used to move within 1" of enemy units in which case the pursuing unit is considered to have charged that turn.
  
• Units with Movement 7" or better may roll two D6 for pursuit, discarding the lowest.
  
• Ranged attacks (excluding Pistols) may not be fired at targets within 3" of a friendly unit.

You know. This actually feels like an interesting idea

What if the unit could consolidate it's movement value minus D6? So a unit that moves 6" can move consolidate anywhere from 0"-5" with 5" letting them get back into close combat. It's not likely but still possible. Then, a unit with 12" movement is basically guaranteed to run down much slower units, forcing you to fight them or stall them at least.

Though, I would definitely allow vehicles to fire into close combat like how superheavies work. Why should close combat stop a gunner from firing? They could actually be good screens for a change, since they are supposed to be protecting the rest of the army.

having a -D6 modifier will make it much more interesting, especially when movement will come into play at this point. Would make fast based melee units more valuable in terms of enemy suppression and overall battlefield control.

About the vehicle front. I am a bit on a crossroads here, vehicles usually have access to long range weaponry and their movement is usually much faster than most units (bar very fast units). It's really only those vehicles who are designed for close range who would be disadvantaged by these rules. I would say maybe give them a keyword or something that changes their weapon profiles to pistol when within 3" of an enemy? (keyword Skirmisher?)

mchammadad wrote:

About the vehicle front. I am a bit on a crossroads here, vehicles usually have access to long range weaponry and their movement is usually much faster than most units (bar very fast units). It's really only those vehicles who are designed for close range who would be disadvantaged by these rules. I would say maybe give them a keyword or something that changes their weapon profiles to pistol when within 3" of an enemy? (keyword Skirmisher?)

I was thinking secondary weapons (sponsons and such) could fire into close combat while main weapons (cannons, prisms) would be able to fire elsewhere. Maybe just a distinction between how the gun is mounted?

Problem you'll see with that is people asking the question "what is main/secondary weapons?" Cause that could lead to some weapons being classified as "primary" but game play wise feel more like a secondary (I can think of main turret flamers being a contender for this)

By using this keyword instead, you can make units that are specialized in close quarters engagements without needing to make a complicating "Main"/ "Secondary" gun system

Example: Instead of making say a Hellhound (Flamer tank for IG) have a "Primary" Flame cannon and a secondary "Heavy bolter", you can instead make it a skirmisher, which allows it's full load of guns to be used in close range (3" or less).

Another example is a Baal Predator, since both loadouts deal with mass infantry, and the tank is designed for close quarters "8" flamers or Assault cannon flamers. Giving it skirmisher seems to be a better idea as it can still retain it's firepower in close range. Exactly how it is used

All of the threads i see proposing changes really just come down to one proposal:

"I think my CC guys should be able to lock themselves in CC forever so they don't get shot".

If there weren't a dozen ways to get into CC 1st turn before your opponent even has a chance to move, I'd have a bit more sympathy for the CC complaints.

My main complaint about leaving CC is that for a majority of the units worth tying up have the fly keyword so it's pointless.

At least in my games anyway. I think just giving things with the fly keyword-1 to hit when leaving CC would be enough

I still think the most elegant solution to this problem is a overwatch type solution along with some sort of defensive bonus for troops that were engaged in melee combat at the top of their enemies turn.

Those seem to be the 2 biggest problems. Units fall back without any penalty leaving the charging unit out in the open to die.

Units being disengaged from may make one round of attacks at unit falling back only hitting on 6s. Could reduce to one attack per model but a lot of units rely on volume of attack to get anything done and reducing it to only hitting on 6s seems fair.

Units engaged in CC at the start of opponents turn receive a +1 save/toughness/-1 to be hit during the shooting phase (and against any abilities that are preformed as if it were the shooting phase) if a unit they were engaged with falls back from combat.

Done. No locking people into combat forever. No wonky chasing units down. CC gets some protection but doesn't become invincible and the unit fleeing takes some damage but nothing strange like grots inflicting MWs on land raiders.

Fluffy as the guys you are fleeing from get to make an attack at your back and your shooting units don't have the time to line-up their shots against a unit in combat with their friends.

bananathug wrote:
I still think the most elegant solution to this problem is a overwatch type solution along with some sort of defensive bonus for troops that were engaged in melee combat at the top of their enemies turn.

Those seem to be the 2 biggest problems. Units fall back without any penalty leaving the charging unit out in the open to die.

Units being disengaged from may make one round of attacks at unit falling back only hitting on 6s. Could reduce to one attack per model but a lot of units rely on volume of attack to get anything done and reducing it to only hitting on 6s seems fair.

Units engaged in CC at the start of opponents turn receive a +1 save/toughness/-1 to be hit during the shooting phase (and against any abilities that are preformed as if it were the shooting phase) if a unit they were engaged with falls back from combat.

Done. No locking people into combat forever. No wonky chasing units down. CC gets some protection but doesn't become invincible and the unit fleeing takes some damage but nothing strange like grots inflicting MWs on land raiders.

Fluffy as the guys you are fleeing from get to make an attack at your back and your shooting units don't have the time to line-up their shots against a unit in combat with their friends.

a bonus/penalty for leaving CC for the units that were there, it's not bad.

Will make some units very hard to take down, while others it'll be ok to meh, but i guess you cant fix everything. Terminators (especially TH/SS) will be walking 2++ in tht shooting, which sounds badass. While the +1 toughness would make some things hard to wound while others will be meh.

I can see this working, but YMMV

Mchaagen wrote:
A rules proposal to change Fall Back;

Units can attempt to pursue enemy units attempting to Fall Back. Both players roll off when a unit that is attempting to Fall Back is pursued. If the pursuing players' score is equal or higher [or the advantage could go to the falling back unit if this is too much of a detriment] the unit attempting to Fall Back is caught. Roll a D6 for a unit that has been caught, on a 1 nothing, on a 2-6 it suffers D3 mortal wounds [I might change or remove this extra damage entirely for initial play-testing]. If a pursuing unit is caught, both units stay in place. If a unit is not caught it may move its movement distance with the normal restrictions.

Additional rules change; 'Tank' (non-flyer, non-walker) units may still fire at a reduced BS [hit on 6's] if within 1" of an enemy.

Would this work?

---Edit---
Updated to incorporate additional feedback.

You might be able to get away with a simple roll off and doing some mortal wounds, but not preventing the move entirely.

The problem with preventing the fall back move in general means some armies will be able to chain across enemy armies taking little to ni damage in the process.

It's funny, how two editions ago everyone was ok with CC being tied , cause the unit usually died the turn it was charged and then got shot to pieces.

Yet when they allow CC units to pile into another CC from their previous one, which if i remember was 3rd edition. People are all up in arms about units chaining CC to be "OP"

You know whats OP?, a unit that can target you from across the table without ever having to worry about being targeted by anything. That is OP.

Considering the fact that this is a tactics game, and if someone can get their unit to pile chain into your units, you either:

a) Didn't space them good enough so that it wouldn't happen.

b) put all your firepower into one place and didn't bother to spread out, both to secure objectives but to also make sure all your firepower can't be bogged down by melee units.

c) just want this game to be all about the range, therefore allowing you to carefully apply all your shooting into whoever you want dead.

First off, not everyone wants to play like Tau. Secondly, if your saying that the rules for CC is too broken but don't want to change something that makes said mechanic redundant (I.E fall back to melee units) then you really don't understand the reason why this forum post is a thing.

Shooting in this game is a constant. You will always get the same amount of shots at a given range regardless of where your enemy is. Melee is WAY more specific in that it is a random chance to get into your range in which you have a limited amount of attacks before the enemy picks up everything and leaves you in the dust, making the entire painstaking travel into said close combat completely redundant. And not only that but also giving the enemy another shot before said close combat to give out one more burst of shooting.

Tell me, if someone decided to only give you normal internet if you forked out a premium while another guy gets it for free because he is one of them. Would you be asking why you were given the short end of the stick?

This current fall back mechanic is this. This is something that needs to be addressed. Because in it's current state, it is basically giving the shooting player a premium in this game