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.

Just give me my swings, and I'll call it even.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How's this for a suggestion? A unit that wants to fall back rolls a D6 and if it's equal or higher to their WS they disengage safely, otherwise they die. Fly adds 2 to the roll.

This'd make units that actually know how to fight in melee better at disengaging than random conscripts and would be potentially lethal enough that falling back isn't automatic.

So my 200 pt broadside suit has a 2/3 chance of dying if he withdraws from a 3 pt grot?

Please avoid insta killing mechanics. They don't work.

Dandelion wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How's this for a suggestion? A unit that wants to fall back rolls a D6 and if it's equal or higher to their WS they disengage safely, otherwise they die. Fly adds 2 to the roll.

This'd make units that actually know how to fight in melee better at disengaging than random conscripts and would be potentially lethal enough that falling back isn't automatic.

So my 200 pt broadside suit has a 2/3 chance of dying if he withdraws from a 3 pt grot?

Please avoid insta killing mechanics. They don't work.

If you've managed to get your 200 point Broadsides tied up by a Grot then yes. Play better next time.

 Lance845 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think it's necessary at all. It's just salt on the wound. Armies can put legions of cheap crap in the way of assaulters and then this on top of it.

Except tarpits are stupid and I don't ever want to play a game where you negate an enemy units by locking it into a fight it cannot possibly escape while everyone involved in the fight is immune to outside interference again.

Being able to fall back is needed. There should be some kind of consequence to it, i agree. breaking and running from a melee should carry risk.

Just a thought, what if fall back caused an immediate morale test? You immediately run the risk of loosing models and screens are often the models with the weakest leadership attributes.

Tarpits WERE a legit strategy though and definitely exposed problem units, good or bad. Pretty much all the tarpits at that point of time were slow overall, so if it happens it rewards the better player.

No, it was a dumb ass strategy that could negate a massive amount of points with very few points simply because the mechanics of 7th were bad. My hormagants would be one of the greatest tarpit units in the game. Or better my gargs. 12" M massive foot print. Inescapable. Want me to bury your vehicle in bodies so the people it's transporting can never disembark and there is noting you can do about it? Done.

If you could get your Gaunts and Gargoyles to do that, then yes you should be allowed to do so.

I'd say CC is fine but some mechanics should be changed.

Mainly falling back, yes its great but when you're the only marine player playing again nothing but xenos who all seem to have the fly keyword, it gets very frustrating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe more dedicated Combat units have a closer deep strike or what wyches have with their "no escape" rule. I'd be more inclined to take assault marines if they fell closer or could actually keep something tied up

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
1) 2d6 for charge range is far too random. It's completely unfair that an assault army can make it all the way across the table, get 5 inches from an enemy, take overwatch, and then fail the charge, leaving them completely exposed. Make charge range something like Movement + d6. That immediately cuts down on the randomness and benefits armies that are naturally swift.

2) Overwatch is fine, but only once per squad. It is frustrating that one squad can overwatch as many times as they are charged granted the assaulting unit doesn't make it in. Just once is enough.

3) Falling back is way too overpowered. Sure, the squad who falls back can't attack, but literally every other squad can, once again leaving the assaulter completely naked. Easy fix without adding any rules- instead of falling back in the movement phase, you fall back in the assault phase. If a unit has fly, they can fall back in the movement phase instead.

These three rules buff assault appropriately and are extremely simple.

1) Seconded. Alternatively, treat charge distance as a second 'movement' - roll 2d6, you 'charge' up to distance rolled regardless of whether it gets you within 1" or not.
2) Seconded. Also need to get rid of "declaring multiple charges." Disordered Charge was a good mechanic that was hauled away.
3) Seconded. I suggested this while back when 8th first came out. It is the most elegant solution without needing to implement another round of dice off. To add, Fall back can be another "at the end of movement phase" action, much like how most deepstrikes work, instead of making it a "charge out" of combat.

 skchsan wrote:

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
1) 2d6 for charge range is far too random. It's completely unfair that an assault army can make it all the way across the table, get 5 inches from an enemy, take overwatch, and then fail the charge, leaving them completely exposed. Make charge range something like Movement + d6. That immediately cuts down on the randomness and benefits armies that are naturally swift.

2) Overwatch is fine, but only once per squad. It is frustrating that one squad can overwatch as many times as they are charged granted the assaulting unit doesn't make it in. Just once is enough.

3) Falling back is way too overpowered. Sure, the squad who falls back can't attack, but literally every other squad can, once again leaving the assaulter completely naked. Easy fix without adding any rules- instead of falling back in the movement phase, you fall back in the assault phase. If a unit has fly, they can fall back in the movement phase instead.

These three rules buff assault appropriately and are extremely simple.

1) Seconded. Alternatively, treat charge distance as a second 'movement' - roll 2d6, you 'charge' up to distance rolled regardless of whether it gets you within 1" or not.
2) Seconded. Also need to get rid of "declaring multiple charges." Disordered Charge was a good mechanic that was hauled away.
3) Seconded. I suggested this while back when 8th first came out. It is the most elegant solution without needing to implement another round of dice off. To add, Fall back can be another "at the end of movement phase" action, much like how most deepstrikes work, instead of making it a "charge out" of combat.

Your addendum to 1) is something I've been wanting to add since 7th. We need to get SOMETHING out of a failed charge.

Personally how id ifx charging is do what 8tj re fantasy used to do
Movement +2d7

 skchsan wrote:

1) Seconded. Alternatively, treat charge distance as a second 'movement' - roll 2d6, you 'charge' up to distance rolled regardless of whether it gets you within 1" or not.
2) Seconded. Also need to get rid of "declaring multiple charges." Disordered Charge was a good mechanic that was hauled away.
3) Seconded. I suggested this while back when 8th first came out. It is the most elegant solution without needing to implement another round of dice off. To add, Fall back can be another "at the end of movement phase" action, much like how most deepstrikes work, instead of making it a "charge out" of combat.

Really solid ideas.

I admit I'm not 100% sure what needs to be done to fix close combat but after a recent game I played I'm sure the main culprit is Falling Back. It was obviously introduced because first-turn charges are now a thing but I think it's gone too far.

Being able to walk out of combat with no real drawback is simply ridiculous. And no, not being able to fire isn't a drawback since the lethality of shooting has gone up so much in 8th losing 1-2 units of shooting still leaves most armies able to wipe out the assaulters with what's left. A real penalty for falling back is needed. I quite like the idea of a Morale test on 2D6.

Perhaps better: how about forcing Fall Back to happen at the start of the movement phase and allowing units who were previously engaged to make a 3" follow-up? It adds some tactics for both the charger and defender in terms of positioning and means that while it is possible to get away from combat you have to think about the positioning of your army as a whole. It also means highly mobile assault units are better at tying up enemy units.

I don't think rules where you have to roll XD6 and enemies die on rolls of 6 are a good solution because of how variable the results are and how certain armies just don't care. The problem isn't really that the unit falling back doesn't take casualties, it's more that the assaulter is left standing around like a lemon, waiting to take an army's worth of shooting in the face.

Slipspace wrote:
Perhaps better: how about forcing Fall Back to happen at the start of the movement phase and allowing units who were previously engaged to make a 3" follow-up? It adds some tactics for both the charger and defender in terms of positioning and means that while it is possible to get away from combat you have to think about the positioning of your army as a whole. It also means highly mobile assault units are better at tying up enemy units.

I don't think rules where you have to roll XD6 and enemies die on rolls of 6 are a good solution because of how variable the results are and how certain armies just don't care. The problem isn't really that the unit falling back doesn't take casualties, it's more that the assaulter is left standing around like a lemon, waiting to take an army's worth of shooting in the face.

If enemies can fall back using their normal Movement characteristics, so should the disengaged units be able to move at their full Movement and not just 3". This way, fast units should have the capability to reengage, and the falling back opponent better think twice to either simply remain in combat or choose to allow the disengaged units gain a free round of movement.

1. 2d6 charge doesn’t make as much sense in this edition that has variable movement stat. The slow unit should charge at a penalty while faster unit should get a bonus.
a. Less < 6 -1 to charge rolls? > 6 +1 >12 +2 to charge rolls?
b. Your movement speed or half your movement speed, is the minimum you can roll on a charge?

2. Not having +1 A on a charge makes it difficult to make up for a lacking shooting or long ranged shooting.
a. Charging units get +1 to hit? Or +1 to wound?

3. The charging unit suffers overwatch and possible strike back. Shooting attacks are safer in that they are not immediately shot back.
a. Kind of the sacred cow of 40k but maybe close combat only happens on the active player’s turn?

4. Removing the initiative stat means classically slow armies like Orks now have a chance to get the first strike in melee where in previous editions they would have no chance. While faster armies like Eldar & Slaanesh, are now vulnerable to losing first strike against enemies they would never have lost to.
a. No idea about the initiative. It would be a good fallback stat though having an opposed initiative check to fall back.

5. Too armies have morale mitigation mechanics. That allows more enemy models to fall back than armies that do not have such mechanics.
a. Slaying a model adds -1 to your morale check to offset your unit’s losses?

Maybe disengage is a 1d6" M roll instead of the units M?

On the fallback issues -- what if the opposing unit got a free attack, or free set of attacks (apply overwatch hit rules if you like... or not...) whenever a unit fell back?

hah, never mind -- looks like there's a whole thread about that. nothing to see here!

I like the idea of the D6 against WS but tweaked a bit.

"If a unit wishes to fall back, roll a D6 and compare it to the unit's majority WS, Adding 2 if the unit has the vehicle,monster or Fly keyword. If the result matches the WS then the unit has sucessfuly escaped the fighting. Otherwise the unit remains in combat.
Units with the Calvary keyword impose a -1 penalty to this roll, to represent the units swift mobility."


This does a few things:

1) it addresses the problem of vehicles and flyers that would struggle to get out of CC, the +2 represents either the vehicle going full ramming speed into the unit. Making things get out of it's way, while the +2 to flyers represent it's speed.

2) fly units become better at getting away from CC because they can fly out of it, hence the +2.

3) the penalty is that they stay in CC, because if the unit that charged them almost killed them. Then it is basically saying that they cant get away from the unit that clearly caught them with their pants down.

4) Calvary need something to make them have a layer of strategy on them. I find it annoying when calvary units get in but have no negative mechanic for other units to try and outrun them (this is calvary vs footslogging we are talking about) hence the -1 for them.

This would make the fall back mechanic actually represent the risk of falling back from a melee skirmish. Not the stupid crud we currently have

 skchsan wrote:

1) Seconded. Alternatively, treat charge distance as a second 'movement' - roll 2d6, you 'charge' up to distance rolled regardless of whether it gets you within 1" or not.
2) Seconded. Also need to get rid of "declaring multiple charges." Disordered Charge was a good mechanic that was hauled away.
3) Seconded. I suggested this while back when 8th first came out. It is the most elegant solution without needing to implement another round of dice off. To add, Fall back can be another "at the end of movement phase" action, much like how most deepstrikes work, instead of making it a "charge out" of combat.

1) No. A space marine can currently move 6" and fire his boltgun, or move 6+D6" instead of firing. Your mechanic would allow a space marine to move 6", fire his boltgun and then declare a charge and move up to a further 18". No point in advancing at all.
2) I would go with a compromise here. Units can declare multiple charges without penalty, but may only engage (go within 1" of) the declared targets during the ensuing fight phase. no consolidating into other units, during the first turn at least. Units declaring a charge against a single unit gain +1A in the turn they charged.
3) 4+ roll to fall back, +1 if only you have fly/-1 if only the enemy has fly, +1 if you have the vehicle keyword and the enemy does not, +1 to the highest movement speed/-1 to the lower, (to a max of 2+/6+). All models falling back suffer -1 to hit in addition to other penalties. This allows a storm raven or a jetbike to have a good chance of escaping infantry, but infantry have less chance of escaping a jetbike.

mchammadad wrote:
I like the idea of the D6 against WS but tweaked a bit.
"If a unit wishes to fall back, roll a D6 and compare it to the unit's majority WS, Adding 2 if the unit has the vehicle,monster or Fly keyword. If the result matches the WS then the unit has sucessfuly escaped the fighting. Otherwise the unit remains in combat.
Units with the Calvary keyword impose a -1 penalty to this roll, to represent the units swift mobility."
4) Calvary need something to make them have a layer of strategy on them. I find it annoying when calvary units get in but have no negative mechanic for other units to try and outrun them (this is calvary vs footslogging we are talking about) hence the -1 for them.
This would make the fall back mechanic actually represent the risk of falling back from a melee skirmish. Not the stupid crud we currently have

Mobility should be taken into account with movement speed. A bloodcrusher is not faster or more agile than a shining spear.

Quick idea just tossing it out there. What if charges were M + 1d6 to a maximum of 12.

So a slow unit like necrons would charge somewhere between 6-11" but something really fast like Gargoyles (who have a 12" M would just always charge 12".

SM would generally be charging 7-12.

What if charge distance was the max(M/2 or 2d6)? Fast units like Slaanesh Seekers (M14) or Eldar Jetbikes (M16). Would have a minimum charge distance of 7" or 8", respectively. Slow units like Terminators (M5) would have a minimum charge distance of 2".

Here's the two homebrews I got.
(Using some insight from this thread ofc.)

1) Falling Back|
On the Controlling Player's Assault Phase, any unit that is locked in combat may
choose to fall back, just as the unit in question could make its first melee
strike. If the unit goes after another in the assault round, it cannot fall back
until after the opponent attacks. [Reminder: You can only fall back on your own
Assault Phase.]

1a. //Use these rules instead of any mentioned Falling Back rules.//

1b. A unit with the FLY keyword may fall back during it's movement phase, but it
takes a -1 penalty to its WS and BS for the rest of the turn. (This makes
disengage-into re-assault possible but with a penalty.)


2) Charging|
Charge range changed from 2d6 to: 5" + d3". (Ave. is still 7")
Notes:
(No one declares an 11-12" charge, No one wants a 2-3" charge; not even your
opponents. It really doesn't make sense that movement is standardized while
moving more to punch things is randomized so heavily. Honestly, a Unit of Plague
Bearers could get a 17" total charge range while your Khorne Berserkers get a 8"
total charge range, with both instances happening in open terrain; simultaniously
and after recieving no casualties whatsoever. This really is too illogical, even
after removing models from the back of the unit. Assault really needs the buff,
let's be real here. Having every unit a 33%~ chance to never punch things in an
edition where assault does less damage flat out than shooting is blasphemy.)

2b. Units that declare charges must always move up to the total distance
rolled towards their target(s), regardless of whether they reached (within 1"
normally) of their target(s) as desired. (I thought this was already a rule but
w/e. It's a good one regardless.)

I agree that too much hinges on the random charge distance at the moment. They got rid of most of the other incredibly random stuff (vehicles exploding from 1 hit, entire units being wiped out in combat because they lost 1 guy) and now the random charge distance seems to mean victory or oblivion, especially with many units able to enter play 9" away from the enemy on turn 1...