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.

"Must " is a strong word. It's still hard to get into CC, even with BA. It's expensive, and the units doing the punching are expensive. And it's usually futile.

 Marmatag wrote:
Fall back must exist as a mechanic in the current ruleset. Guardsmen just need to be priced appropriately. Nuff said.

And what's "priced appropriately" for a BS 4+, WS4+ T3 1W LD6(LD7 with a Sergeant alive) 5+ save model?
We're already at a place where a BS/WS5+ T3 1W LD4 5+ save model(Conscripts) is priced exactly the same as a BS/WS4+ with LD6/7, and a model that exchanges BS/WS4+ for 3+ is 2 points more while retaining the same overall statline and paying almost double for Plasma or Melta Guns.


Face facts. Guardsmen have been priced appropriately when put into comparison to other similar models.

I think the problem here is that melee units don't kill enough.

There are 2 solutions to the "eternal combat" - either melee absolutely murderblenders people so there's no one left standing, or you allow people to fall back.

Otherwise, you end up with eternal combats that take forever to resolve while having no real bearing on the game and taking up real estate that the rest of the armies just play around. That's not really that engaging or interesting.

The other issue is "phases". In previous editions, assault armies would game the system so that there would be enemy models left in combat that would die in the opponents turn, giving them a free assault. This felt very mechanical and silly, and not at all like real life. Units with guns, like a fully operational main battle tank, would have to sit and wait for the combat to end, and then when it did... well, they still couldn't shoot, because it was after the shooting phase for some reason. They just sorta sat there and watched their buddies and then themselves got hacked apart. That's not intuitive or realistic at all.

Conversely, 8th edition's assault mechanics make sense. If I had to add a penalty for getting away, it would be that models in the fleeing unit are killed if a certain number is rolled or whatever - that still throws the melee army a bone by wiping out whatever they charged, but also allows the shooting army to participate in the game instead of being locked in combat from turn 1 to turn 6.

I would like to see W40k have a rule like WMH's 'Free Strike' If you deliberately moved in and then out of melee range the other model got a single free melee attack against you.

It makes screens matter when rushing past them is a risky option. It makes the tactic of bouncing from one target to the next without finishing them off no longer a safe bet.

Heck Ultramarines would actually have to fear being charged again.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fall back must exist as a mechanic in the current ruleset. Guardsmen just need to be priced appropriately. Nuff said.

And what's "priced appropriately" for a BS 4+, WS4+ T3 1W LD6(LD7 with a Sergeant alive) 5+ save model?
We're already at a place where a BS/WS5+ T3 1W LD4 5+ save model(Conscripts) is priced exactly the same as a BS/WS4+ with LD6/7, and a model that exchanges BS/WS4+ for 3+ is 2 points more while retaining the same overall statline and paying almost double for Plasma or Melta Guns.


Face facts. Guardsmen have been priced appropriately when put into comparison to other similar models.

Guard Infantry should be 5 points. At the very least it keeps them between conscripts and veterans. It might even make veterans more viable. It's also the same price as Termagaunts who have a very similar statline.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fall back must exist as a mechanic in the current ruleset. Guardsmen just need to be priced appropriately. Nuff said.

And what's "priced appropriately" for a BS 4+, WS4+ T3 1W LD6(LD7 with a Sergeant alive) 5+ save model?
We're already at a place where a BS/WS5+ T3 1W LD4 5+ save model(Conscripts) is priced exactly the same as a BS/WS4+ with LD6/7, and a model that exchanges BS/WS4+ for 3+ is 2 points more while retaining the same overall statline and paying almost double for Plasma or Melta Guns.


Face facts. Guardsmen have been priced appropriately when put into comparison to other similar models.

Guard Infantry should be 5 points. At the very least it keeps them between conscripts and veterans. It might even make veterans more viable. It's also the same price as Termagaunts who have a very similar statline.

Veterans will never be viable while they are Elites choices. The only thing they offer over guardsmen is 1 better BS, while the Guardsmen are cheaper and net you more command points to boot, which (depending on regiment) can make those guardsmen hit like veterans anyways if it's ever really necessary.

In Bolt Action, the side that loses the combat round is elimated - regardless of models remaining. Personally, I think that is too punishing, but I feel like that is what some people are proposing - “melee” units should dispose of an enemy unit per round as they hussle their way around the board.

Unless you want to see ranged units doing the same, I think that’s a bad idea - units tied in melee from round 1 to the end of the game ARE doing something - they have the enemy unit tied up.

The only issue with the game right now is that pure melee units have an issue with their targets getting away, pratically scott free. Melee units should have an advantage in chasing retreating units down, but the fact is that most units in 40K are not melee-centric, they are melee supplements. The game should be tweaked so melee has parity to ranged, for sure - but as a primarily Tau player, I would be unhappy if melee dominated and ranged combat had a lesser value than melee in the game.

Ranged units are already doing the same. Point and delete.

Martel732 wrote:
Ranged units are already doing the same. Point and delete.

I can't think of a unit that's not a Lord of War that easily one-shots the vast majority of units it will face.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fall back must exist as a mechanic in the current ruleset. Guardsmen just need to be priced appropriately. Nuff said.

And what's "priced appropriately" for a BS 4+, WS4+ T3 1W LD6(LD7 with a Sergeant alive) 5+ save model?
We're already at a place where a BS/WS5+ T3 1W LD4 5+ save model(Conscripts) is priced exactly the same as a BS/WS4+ with LD6/7, and a model that exchanges BS/WS4+ for 3+ is 2 points more while retaining the same overall statline and paying almost double for Plasma or Melta Guns.


Face facts. Guardsmen have been priced appropriately when put into comparison to other similar models.

Guard Infantry should be 5 points. At the very least it keeps them between conscripts and veterans. It might even make veterans more viable. It's also the same price as Termagaunts who have a very similar statline.

Veterans will never be viable while they are Elites choices. The only thing they offer over guardsmen is 1 better BS, while the Guardsmen are cheaper and net you more command points to boot, which (depending on regiment) can make those guardsmen hit like veterans anyways if it's ever really necessary.

Those are considerations, but closing the gap in terms of points makes veterans more palatable than they currently are, they go from 50% more points to only 20% more, hence "more viable". And +1 BS really isn't worth the extra 2 pts to begin with. Sure, it's not the best scenario but it's an improvement. Though, if there were fewer elite options (platoon commanders becoming HQ for example) then I think veterans would fill an interesting niche for a Brigade.

Martel732 wrote:
Ranged units are already doing the same. Point and delete.

Ranged units are doing it the long way round by killing each individual model one at a time and then MAYBE making them suffer morale.

It's not the same as "Melee got ya!, pack um up."

But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

There's super rare exceptions. Not sure why you can't accept that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

There's super rare exceptions. Not sure why you can't accept that.

What super rare exceptions? Out of all the codexes that have been released, the only army that can't pull off a Turn 1 Charge is...

.... uh...

....
...

............... I have no idea. I think they all can.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

There's super rare exceptions. Not sure why you can't accept that.

What super rare exceptions? Out of all the codexes that have been released, the only army that can't pull off a Turn 1 Charge is...

.... uh...

....
...

............... I have no idea. I think they all can.

Just like all Codices last edition could make Turn 2 charges.

Come on, dude...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

There's super rare exceptions. Not sure why you can't accept that.

What super rare exceptions? Out of all the codexes that have been released, the only army that can't pull off a Turn 1 Charge is...

.... uh...

....
...

............... I have no idea. I think they all can.

Just like all Codices last edition could make Turn 2 charges.

Come on, dude...

What? I recently watched a game where a Black Templars army brought 6 five-man Vanguard Veterans and 2 10-man Terminator squads and obliterated essentially an entire Dark Angel army with turn-1 charges. I've been charged Turn 1 by berzerkers and genestealers. I've seen Ogryns come bundling out of Valkyries at the top of turn one, right into the enemy's face. I'm literally struggling to think of a reason why you couldn't get into combat turn 1 if you wanted to.

 ultimentra wrote:
Here's a novel idea: Make the disengage from combat move happen at the end of the shooting phase.

Not a novel idea. I've been suggesting this since 8th launched here at dakka. Apparently except for a few would rather add more dice offs instead.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

There's super rare exceptions. Not sure why you can't accept that.

What super rare exceptions? Out of all the codexes that have been released, the only army that can't pull off a Turn 1 Charge is...

.... uh...

....
...

............... I have no idea. I think they all can.

Just like all Codices last edition could make Turn 2 charges.

Come on, dude...

What? I recently watched a game where a Black Templars army brought 6 five-man Vanguard Veterans and 2 10-man Terminator squads and obliterated essentially an entire Dark Angel army with turn-1 charges. I've been charged Turn 1 by berzerkers and genestealers. I've seen Ogryns come bundling out of Valkyries at the top of turn one, right into the enemy's face. I'm literally struggling to think of a reason why you couldn't get into combat turn 1 if you wanted to.

I more or less agree.

Even Tau could get into Melee turn 1 if they wanted to with stealth suits and beacons. It would be crazy for them to do it but they could.

8th has severally reduced the gap between melee and shooting. Falling back isn't perfect yet. I don't disagree with the idea that there should be some kind of penalty for falling back. But to say you can't melee on turn 1? Unlikely. If you build for it you can absolutely do it to devastating effect with a large range of units who will get the most out of being in melee.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

There's super rare exceptions. Not sure why you can't accept that.

What super rare exceptions? Out of all the codexes that have been released, the only army that can't pull off a Turn 1 Charge is...

.... uh...

....
...

............... I have no idea. I think they all can.

Just like all Codices last edition could make Turn 2 charges.

Come on, dude...

What? I recently watched a game where a Black Templars army brought 6 five-man Vanguard Veterans and 2 10-man Terminator squads and obliterated essentially an entire Dark Angel army with turn-1 charges. I've been charged Turn 1 by berzerkers and genestealers. I've seen Ogryns come bundling out of Valkyries at the top of turn one, right into the enemy's face. I'm literally struggling to think of a reason why you couldn't get into combat turn 1 if you wanted to.

1. That's slightly less than a 50% chance for all them to Deep Strike and make the charge. So you saw all those things make it and suddenly melee is super viable?

Watch them try and do it again.

2. You're the one not doing proper screening. You've shared your list.

You don't get into melee as long as the opponent properly screened everything. This is not complicated. You can't get through, you have to charge something else, and then that something else falls back and everything shoots at you.

I can beat most net-list BA lists in the deployment phase. True story.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Fall back must exist as a mechanic in the current ruleset. Guardsmen just need to be priced appropriately. Nuff said.

And what's "priced appropriately" for a BS 4+, WS4+ T3 1W LD6(LD7 with a Sergeant alive) 5+ save model?
We're already at a place where a BS/WS5+ T3 1W LD4 5+ save model(Conscripts) is priced exactly the same as a BS/WS4+ with LD6/7, and a model that exchanges BS/WS4+ for 3+ is 2 points more while retaining the same overall statline and paying almost double for Plasma or Melta Guns.


Face facts. Guardsmen have been priced appropriately when put into comparison to other similar models.

Have you ever considered that concripts are now properly priced and guardsmen haven't been? It's not that conscripts are now too expensive, but that guardsmen are too cheap. People who argue that GEQs and their T3 S3 profile justifies the cost... have yet to accept the fact that there's only marginal difference between T4's in game currently, and that having T3 actually puts your opponents on disadvantage due to diminishing returns on their high S weapons. Weapons S6 thru S10 hurts GEQ's at the same rate, which makes the point investment somewhat worthless since S4-5 weapons can hurt GEQ only 17% less, at mere fractions of higher tier weapons? Having access to cheap, massed T3 is exponentially stronger than having at most 1/3 the amount of T4s. But to get back to the point, stop strawmanning the argument here - discussion of fixing the fall back mechanism isn't alway about guardsmen, but about how cheap chaff that can potentially nullifies whole 2k pts of melee centric army by spending 300-500 pts of their army.

No, he hasn't. That is obvious.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But they start turn 1, instead of turn 4.

So you're saying that melee armies can't be in combat turn one in 8th Edition?...

... I encourage you to try playing a few games before you make up your mind about an edition, eh? It's been like eight months.

There's super rare exceptions. Not sure why you can't accept that.

What super rare exceptions? Out of all the codexes that have been released, the only army that can't pull off a Turn 1 Charge is...

.... uh...

....
...

............... I have no idea. I think they all can.

Just like all Codices last edition could make Turn 2 charges.

Come on, dude...

What? I recently watched a game where a Black Templars army brought 6 five-man Vanguard Veterans and 2 10-man Terminator squads and obliterated essentially an entire Dark Angel army with turn-1 charges. I've been charged Turn 1 by berzerkers and genestealers. I've seen Ogryns come bundling out of Valkyries at the top of turn one, right into the enemy's face. I'm literally struggling to think of a reason why you couldn't get into combat turn 1 if you wanted to.

1. That's slightly less than a 50% chance for all them to Deep Strike and make the charge. So you saw all those things make it and suddenly melee is super viable?

Watch them try and do it again.

2. You're the one not doing proper screening. You've shared your list.

You don't get into melee as long as the opponent properly screened everything. This is not complicated. You can't get through, you have to charge something else, and then that something else falls back and everything shoots at you.

Getting into melee with a screen is getting into melee.

If you disallow falling back, then you end up with:

"You charge the screen. You can't get through. They charge you with chaff, because they need to keep you locked up so you don't instantly wreck their guns. Now you charge with something. Now they charge with something. You're cutting through chaff as quickly as they deliver it. Eventually, after several turns of no one being able to move because everyone is trapped in a never ending close combat forever, the game ends."

Sounds fun & engaging.

The point is not assaulting in turn 1 or not, the point is assaulting something that is worthy an assault in turn 1 but also 2 and 3.

You can shoot whatever unit you want to target but with the presence of effective screeners it's basically impossible to assault something valuable in turn 1.

Which means that a unit that really suffers from being assaulted never gets locked in combat or crippled in close combat in the reality since games last on average three turns and it's very hard to reach those units.

I can have an ork army with 90 kommandos and 40 boyz that all arrive 9'' from the enemy in turn 1 and with 7 units in total and the re-roll orks have I'd get the chance to assault something in turn 1 for sure. But what I'm going to assault? Something expendable. And even with 200+ attacks my close combat phase is not going to cause a lot of damage while shooting units can melt everything they want.

Falling back may be allowed but then the enemy unit that somehow managed to reach combat in the previous turn should get some bonus. Maybe it should be granted a -1 or -2 to hit that represents the fact that enemy units are afraid to shoot at their friendly models that are running away.

I'd also nerf turn 1 of shooting for the player that goes first. Everything gets a -1 to hit basically.

 Blackie wrote:
The point is not assaulting in turn 1 or not, the point is assaulting something that is worthy an assault in turn 1 but also 2 and 3.

You can shoot whatever unit you want to target but with the presence of effective screeners it's basically impossible to assault something valuable in turn 1.

No that's not the issue with fall back. A well thought out deployment should grant the player with screens to protect their more valuable units.

Melee screens should be means to delay the melee, not something that tarpits it in the middle of battlefield so the disengaged units can be shot at in the ensuing shooting phase. The universal, (effectively) consequence-free ability to fall back out of combat and having the rest of your army shoot at the said disengaged unit is the primary downfall of the current fall back mechanism. Currently, melee screens are both defensive AND offensive - which is why there has been so much talk of penalizing the units that fall back to balance out the follow up threats on the disengaged units.

Offensive fall back maneuver has to be sourced only from stratagems/chapter tactics/perks etc., not universal.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

I realize real life warfare isn't super relevant, but I'm pretty sure historically speaking the bulk of warriors in large/pitched battles died as they broke and fled as the opposing army ran them down.

It was also common to shot at enemies engaged in close combat.

Personally I think that Fall Back is penalised enough with being unable to Shoot or Charge afterwards without suitable abilities/Stratagems. The problem with it is the unit that is left behind, which suddenly becomes vulnerable to others who can shoot.

For me the better fix would come in two parts. First, non-Pistol weapons can longer be fired at units within 3" of a friendly unit. This gives a bit of leeway between a unit that is close to being in combat, and actually in combat, and I think it's about right for a distance at which stray shots could very easily hit a friendly unit instead so makes sense.

The second part is that the unit(s) that are left behind (no other enemies within 1") should get a D6" consolidate move that can take them within 1" of enemies (and counts as a Charge if they do). Since most Infantry have a 6" Fall Back move this means there's a 1 in 6 chance of catching them. Otherwise your hope is to either get within the 3" safety umbrella, or into some kind of cover instead.

To me this seems like the right balance, as it makes it less likely that a unit that is left behind is now suddenly in the open and vulnerable to the enemy's other units. It also makes it more important that when you Fall Back that you have other units to hold the enemy in place, since the consolidate move wouldn't trigger for units still in combat. So you could leave a hero behind to hold them, or a chaff unit that's already doomed, while a more valuable unit gets away (for now).

Units like Dark Eldar Wyches that have a No Retreat ability still have the benefit of being able to prevent an enemy from fleeing at all, which still has the added benefit of staying where you are, and avoiding any chance of a Fall Back ability or stratagem from being triggered at all.

I don't really understand the problem with Fall Back. All you need to do is surround 1 model sufficiently so it can't move, or am I playing it wrong? It's one of the main reasons to take hormagants for example, that 6 inch consolidate to lock a few models down so there is no falling back.

Most units can't do that because they don't have 6" or fly. And you can always accidentally wipe a unit. I've had oppnents reroll their battleshock to kill their own unit before.