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.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It doesn't scale. Custodes could be wiped out by Guardsmen Infantry on a fairly probable bad roll. Meanwhile it makes more theatrical sense that it's a little harder to try to hit the guy running away.

Some of the worst defeats in history came when one side's morale broke and they were cut down while routing. A failed morale check doesn't mean careful disengagement under covering fire, it means a panicked run under the enemy's guns and blades and fury.

Yeah main difference is those were most likely more equal in training and physical strength compared to having a Guardsmen route a Custodes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah main difference is those were most likely more equal in training and physical strength compared to having a Guardsmen route a Custodes.

I guess we just shouldn't allow Guardsmen to kill Custodes models in melee at all then! If the guard do win combat against a Custodes unit, or just get hot dice, how is killing a Custode this way any different than doing it on a charge?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah main difference is those were most likely more equal in training and physical strength compared to having a Guardsmen route a Custodes.

I guess we just shouldn't allow Guardsmen to kill Custodes models in melee at all then! If the guard do win combat against a Custodes unit, or just get hot dice, how is killing a Custode this way any different than doing it on a charge?

Did you understand the point of my post at all? You do realize that a single Infantry model IS literally incapable of killing a Custodes in a single round, and assuming perfect rolls it's a minimum of three rounds? That's VERY much different than failing a Fall Back roll in this instance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did you understand the point of my post at all? You do realize that a single Infantry model IS literally incapable of killing a Custodes in a single round, and assuming perfect rolls it's a minimum of three rounds? That's VERY much different than failing a Fall Back roll in this instance.

Then why are the Custodes falling back at all? Also, if a single unit interaction is the issue you give that unit a special rule for auto passing fallback tests and call it done.

This has been an entirely pointless tangent.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Did you understand the point of my post at all? You do realize that a single Infantry model IS literally incapable of killing a Custodes in a single round, and assuming perfect rolls it's a minimum of three rounds? That's VERY much different than failing a Fall Back roll in this instance.

Then why are the Custodes falling back at all? Also, if a single unit interaction is the issue you give that unit a special rule for auto passing fallback tests and call it done.

This has been an entirely pointless tangent.

To get back to an objective they might be near? Bikers knowing their Hurricane Bolters are more effective?
Also that isn't just a single unit. Think Tyranid Warriors or Ravenors. White Scars Terminators. Heck, even Wraithguard. There's PLENTY of unit interactions and that was just from a second thinking.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To get back to an objective they might be near? Bikers knowing their Hurricane Bolters are more effective?
Also that isn't just a single unit. Think Tyranid Warriors or Ravenors. White Scars Terminators. Heck, even Wraithguard. There's PLENTY of unit interactions and that was just from a second thinking.

The point of the rule is to ensure that falling back isn't a no-brainer option and put some risk into using it when you've already lost combat. If you just won combat against some trash sent to tie you up, you wouldn't lose anything anyway. If you lose something due to Ld modifier stacking auras or something also good, those rules actually do something now.

It sounds to me like you want falling back to be essentially risk free still but with an additional rule to make it feel like a real choice.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To get back to an objective they might be near? Bikers knowing their Hurricane Bolters are more effective?
Also that isn't just a single unit. Think Tyranid Warriors or Ravenors. White Scars Terminators. Heck, even Wraithguard. There's PLENTY of unit interactions and that was just from a second thinking.

The point of the rule is to ensure that falling back isn't a no-brainer option and put some risk into using it when you've already lost combat. If you just won combat against some trash sent to tie you up, you wouldn't lose anything anyway. If you lose something due to Ld modifier stacking auras or something also good, those rules actually do something now.

It sounds to me like you want falling back to be essentially risk free still but with an additional rule to make it feel like a real choice.

Maybe it can effect vehicles too, like vehicles can always fall back and shoot but if they take a leadership test during falling back and fail the test then they lose wounds.

 brazenjaw wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To get back to an objective they might be near? Bikers knowing their Hurricane Bolters are more effective?
Also that isn't just a single unit. Think Tyranid Warriors or Ravenors. White Scars Terminators. Heck, even Wraithguard. There's PLENTY of unit interactions and that was just from a second thinking.

The point of the rule is to ensure that falling back isn't a no-brainer option and put some risk into using it when you've already lost combat. If you just won combat against some trash sent to tie you up, you wouldn't lose anything anyway. If you lose something due to Ld modifier stacking auras or something also good, those rules actually do something now.

It sounds to me like you want falling back to be essentially risk free still but with an additional rule to make it feel like a real choice.

Maybe it can effect vehicles too, like vehicles can always fall back and shoot but if they take a leadership test during falling back and fail the test then they lose wounds.

Yeah, it would be Ld tests to fallback for all units so it would work on vehicles too.