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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

That's actually the point, isn't? A tactical move badly performed should grant the opponent an advantage.

So when units fail charges, does an entire army get to shoot them up?

After all, it was a tactical move badly performed.

Well, yes, that does tend to happen when you fail a charge.

If you fail a charge, then the unit currently just takes whatever damage they would have gotten from Overwatch and it ends until the opposing player's turn starts...which means that they might not be taken out the next turn.

The idea that was proposed is that "fall back lets disengaged units immediately make a 2d6 consolidation move unless the unit falling back pulls off an organized retreat", requiring a LD check (with Morale from casualties because...reasons, I guess?) and if the unit passes the check then the pursuing unit "only" gets 1d6 of movement instead of 2d6...which is ridiculously punishing and if a similar mechanic was being suggested for shooting units we'd have the people posting this kind of nonsense crying their eyes out about shooting units doing that.

I would have thought morale being modified by n# casualities would be obvious. If a unit suffers severe losses it would be less promt to retreat in an ordered fashion following orders. Simple as that. Disorganized retreats tend to be fatal, and not only to the retreating unit.
The minimum should be "only" 1d6 as the pursuing unit should still be able to catch you up even if you retrear in an ordered fashion. The fact that a unit disengaged is forced to stay put while the enemy goes away is awkward as hell.
Also, yes, it should be a consolidation move. Which means, most probably you will still be forced to advance to the unit that fled but if a supporting unit gets caught in the way...well that's what supporting means most of the time.

The proposal discourages retreating from combat as it should be a very risky move. As it is in reality! If you were pinned down in a bad position. Bad things tend to happen.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another point to consider. Retreating means giving up a certain position. Ergo, lossing ground should actually be represented.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
My idea.

If a unit wishes to fall back from close combat it must make an opposed leadership check (1d6+Ld+Modifiers) against a unit it is engaged with. If the unit wishing to fall back wins its roll then it may fall back as normal. If the unit wishing to fall back fails it's roll it takes a number of mortal wounds equal to the difference between the opposed rolls. If a unit is engaged with more than one other unit your opponent must choose the unit they will use for the roll.

This adds some risk for falling back, but also means that it's unlikely for a chaff unit to prevent a more elite unit from disengaging.

I really like this. It gives negative Ld modifiers a chance to shine. Although, instead of straight up Mortal Wounds, I would have it be just AP- wounds. Don't want to have the leftovers of a unit accidentally taken out by MW and leave the combat unit stuck in the wind to be shot apart anyways.

I would also say that units with the FLY keyword (e.g. jump pack units) don't have to roll, they can just jump away cuz that's what they do.
However, if said unit is engaged with a unit that also has FLY keyword, then it would need to roll as described above.

I quite like the idea of a leadership based test needed for falling back. It would be nice if the leadership stat was used more often in the game.

I agree that falling back In its current form isn’t right. I think it’s far too easy to accomplish. However, I’ve been reading through the thread and have an alternative proposal, that doesn’t use leadership or introduce any new mechanics:

Remove the ability to fallback in the movement phase entirely, and the stipulation that the consolidation move has move towards the enemy. That way units can use the consolidation move to disengage from the enemy. Clever placement during one player’s consolidation move could be used to prevent units from fully disengaging. Units which should be more able to move quickly or disengage effectively could be given a larger consolidation move, equally this would apply to units that should be more able to prevent the enemy from escaping.

A leadership test could still be incorporated if it was felt necessary, where if the test was failed, the normal restrictions to consolidation would apply (moving toward the enemy) and of it were passed that the move towards the enemy restrictions are ignored.

In general:- Lots of rolls bad. So overwatch for the unit being retreat from and other variations on lots of dice I think slows things down for little gain.

Opposed rolls:- Why? How should fighting a high LD squad differ from fighting a low LD squad? A commissar is harder to fall back from than a Chaos marine?

Falling back in certain directions:- Why deployment zone? If the enemy is in my zone why should I be allowed to fall back towards them?

Ideally it should create the minimum of bookeeping and exceptions.

I take the points about there should always be risk, so how about rolling it into the previous morale phase?

So:-

Falling back as is scrapped and changed to:-

End of turn.

Player makes morale test as normal for unit that has lost men in close combat. If it fails the unit loses that many men and remains in combat. If it passes it takes a number of mortal wounds equal to the dice roll and may now take one normal move away from the enemy unit it is in combat with. The enemy unit may then consolidate as normal.

Single model units, or units that use stratagems to pass their morale check, must still make a morale check if they wish to fall back. If they fail they lose that many models, unless they have auto passed using a stratagem, and if they pass/use a stratagem to auto pass take the number of mortal wounds shown on the dice.

Next turn all units act as normal.

Your suggestion simply turns charge phase as MW dealing phase. If you successfully charge, then its either fight to the death or take MW's.

Yeah, that's fething ridiculous. What about a modification of the trial assault rules from 3rd edition?

At the start of the movement phase any unit locked in combat can attempt to fall back. If the opponent wishes to remain in combat there's a roll off. Each player rolls 1d6 and adds it to their units movement characteristic. If the unit attempting to fall back wins, they fall back successfully. If the attacker wins then the units remain in combat and combat continues in the fight phase as normal.

That would simulate a unit trying to flee from another, which in turn tries to chase it down. Obviously faster units have an advantage in that situation.

Seems simple enough, and means you can't just walk away and blast whatever was fighting you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems simple enough, and means you can't just walk away and blast whatever was fighting you.

Worked in 3rd.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Opposed rolls:- Why? How should fighting a high LD squad differ from fighting a low LD squad? A commissar is harder to fall back from than a Chaos marine?

I chose an opposed roll for two reasons:

1) To make LD feel useful again.

2) To make it so that a high morale unit that just won its fight can easily disengage from the now beaten and bloodied chaff that just charged it.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
End of turn.

Player makes morale test as normal for unit that has lost men in close combat. If it fails the unit loses that many men and remains in combat. If it passes it takes a number of mortal wounds equal to the dice roll and may now take one normal move away from the enemy unit it is in combat with. The enemy unit may then consolidate as normal.

Single model units, or units that use stratagems to pass their morale check, must still make a morale check if they wish to fall back. If they fail they lose that many models, unless they have auto passed using a stratagem, and if they pass/use a stratagem to auto pass take the number of mortal wounds shown on the dice.

Next turn all units act as normal.

I'm not hot on this one. Let's step back. What is the problem you're trying to solve, or, what is the benefit you're trying to realize with these changes? If, like me, you see the main problem with falling back being that the unit fallen back from is left exposed to shooting, then this approach means the problematic thing still happens; just less often and with more steps and complications.

Gadzilla666 wrote: Yeah, that's fething ridiculous. What about a modification of the trial assault rules from 3rd edition?

At the start of the movement phase any unit locked in combat can attempt to fall back. If the opponent wishes to remain in combat there's a roll off. Each player rolls 1d6 and adds it to their units movement characteristic. If the unit attempting to fall back wins, they fall back successfully. If the attacker wins then the units remain in combat and combat continues in the fight phase as normal.

That would simulate a unit trying to flee from another, which in turn tries to chase it down. Obviously faster units have an advantage in that situation.

For the same reason as above, I don't love this approach. If falling back is a problem, then the problematic thing will still happen under this rule. Just not as consistently. Also, I'm not sure I want my shining spears to be literally impossible to escape from even if it does make a fair bit of fluff sense. It's a neat idea with plenty of merits, but I don't think I support it.

IMO, fall back, when implemented properly should achieve the following:

1. units that do not wish to remain in combat should be allowed to exit combat.
2. units disengaging should not gain any sort of benefit, tactical, positional or otherwise. Fall back should be nothing more than a mechanic which allows you to leave a combat you cannot win or do not wish to fight, period.
3. units disengaged from should not be held liable for the efforts that went into getting the said unit into melee range.
4. units disengaged from should not gain any generally applicable advantages (i.e. make a move as if movement phase, do X damage, etc)

The existing fall back fails to fulfill points 2 & 3. There are no clause that prevents fall back to be used as a slingshot to make a sweeping advance forward - it's a fall BACK, not FALL FORWARD, FOR THE EMPRAH. It also leaves the units that has been left behind completely exposed to enemy fire.

The proposed penalty & roll-off systems fail to fulfill the points in varying degrees.
For ones that force a check to see if the unit successfully falls back fails to achieve point 1. No unit should be forced to stay in combat it doesn't want to be in.
For ones that force a check, then a penalty, it fails to fulfill points 1 & 4. In addition to the point prior, it also allows one to double dip on one's successful charges.
For ones that give penalty, it fails to fulfill point 4, which again double dips on one's successful charge.

 skchsan wrote:

1. units that do not wish to remain in combat should be allowed to exit combat.
2. units disengaging should not gain any sort of benefit, tactical, positional or otherwise. Fall back should be nothing more than a mechanic which allows you to leave a combat you cannot win or do not wish to fight, period.
3. units disengaged from should not be held liable for the efforts that went into getting the said unit into melee range.
4. units disengaged from should not gain any generally applicable advantages (i.e. make a move as if movement phase, do X damage, etc)

1. Why? Already you can surround units and stop them retreating, but beyond that, why do you think units that want to leave should be able to do so without penalty. Virtually every wargame, historical or fictional, has penalties for doing this. It is near universally regarded as a tricky thing to do. 40k is the only one that comes to mind where it is a routine risk free action.

2. Well they obviously gain a benefit by not being in combat. For some factions they have rules that allow them to shoot. How could you enforce no tactical benifit, you might not even know what your opponents plan is, so how would you enforce it?

3. Can you rewrite that so its clearer? Not sure I have the right understanding.

4. Again why - we already have consolidate rules for when the enemy is dead, why shouldn't you have anything if the enemy is fleeing?

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

1. units that do not wish to remain in combat should be allowed to exit combat.
2. units disengaging should not gain any sort of benefit, tactical, positional or otherwise. Fall back should be nothing more than a mechanic which allows you to leave a combat you cannot win or do not wish to fight, period.
3. units disengaged from should not be held liable for the efforts that went into getting the said unit into melee range.
4. units disengaged from should not gain any generally applicable advantages (i.e. make a move as if movement phase, do X damage, etc)

1. Why? Already you can surround units and stop them retreating, but beyond that, why do you think units that want to leave should be able to do so without penalty. Virtually every wargame, historical or fictional, has penalties for doing this. It is near universally regarded as a tricky thing to do. 40k is the only one that comes to mind where it is a routine risk free action.

2. Well they obviously gain a benefit by not being in combat. For some factions they have rules that allow them to shoot. How could you enforce no tactical benifit, you might not even know what your opponents plan is, so how would you enforce it?

3. Can you rewrite that so its clearer? Not sure I have the right understanding.

4. Again why - we already have consolidate rules for when the enemy is dead, why shouldn't you have anything if the enemy is fleeing?

1. Fall back is implemented as a function to prevent tarpitting (i.e. cultists wrapped around a dreadnought). Tripointing arose as an unfortunate necessity based on technicality. It is risk free to the unit falling back, and all the risks in the world for the unit that was disengaged from. The issue isn't that fall back is free but that units in combat are penalized for getting into combat in the first place.

2. Fall back with units with FLY keyword allows you to slingshot your units forward (as there are no restrictions on moving through units) after 'hiding' in combat, to grab an objective, set up a position to use 'act normally even if fell back' stratagem to charge again, etc. You can also 'fall back' and surround a unit so that it can't make a legal move, etc. Fall back is essentially restriction-free movement with the caveat of starting the movement phase with enemy within 1".

3. Units that are left behind as a result of enemy's fall back are left vulnerable. It's as if they are penalized from getting into combat in the first place. As it stands, fall back essentially makes combat "if you can't kill the entire unit in 1 round of combat, you are dead in your opponent's next turn. Even if you kill the entire unit in a single round, you're still dead in your opponent's next turn."

4. That would be making ADDITIONAL move in the enemy's movement phase. We don't have any rules that allow you to move in your enemy's movement phase. Why should you be allowed to do that when the enemy's falling back?

 skchsan wrote:
1. No unit should be forced to stay in combat it doesn't want to be in.

Why?

I've never thought of close combat as a situation where one side goes "We do not wish to be here!" and the other side goes "Terribly sorry old chap! By all means, walk away from us with much haste!". Some units should be able to stop others from running away, even units that want to get away.

I mean, by that logic, no unit should be forced to endure withering incoming fire it they do not wish to.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
1. No unit should be forced to stay in combat it doesn't want to be in.

Why?

I've never thought of close combat as a situation where one side goes "We do not wish to be here!" and the other side goes "Terribly sorry old chap! By all means, walk away from us with much haste!". Some units should be able to stop others from running away, even units that want to get away.

I mean, by that logic, no unit should be forced to endure withering incoming fire it they do not wish to.

And moving, shooting, charging and fighting should all be done simultaneously.

You have to accept the fact this is a game which operates on abstractions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
1. No unit should be forced to stay in combat it doesn't want to be in.

Why?

I've never thought of close combat as a situation where one side goes "We do not wish to be here!" and the other side goes "Terribly sorry old chap! By all means, walk away from us with much haste!". Some units should be able to stop others from running away, even units that want to get away.

I mean, by that logic, no unit should be forced to endure withering incoming fire it they do not wish to.

Yeah, its just so strange they get to just happily wander off, like its nothing. And further more its breaking the game for some armies and killing list diversity.

 skchsan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
1. No unit should be forced to stay in combat it doesn't want to be in.

Why?

I've never thought of close combat as a situation where one side goes "We do not wish to be here!" and the other side goes "Terribly sorry old chap! By all means, walk away from us with much haste!". Some units should be able to stop others from running away, even units that want to get away.

I mean, by that logic, no unit should be forced to endure withering incoming fire it they do not wish to.

And moving, shooting, charging and fighting should all be done simultaneously.

You have to accept the fact this is a game which operates on abstractions.

Good, IF nr 1 applies and the game is abstract then we also remove overwatch.

Gadzilla666 wrote:Yeah, that's fething ridiculous. What about a modification of the trial assault rules from 3rd edition?

At the start of the movement phase any unit locked in combat can attempt to fall back. If the opponent wishes to remain in combat there's a roll off. Each player rolls 1d6 and adds it to their units movement characteristic. If the unit attempting to fall back wins, they fall back successfully. If the attacker wins then the units remain in combat and combat continues in the fight phase as normal.

That would simulate a unit trying to flee from another, which in turn tries to chase it down. Obviously faster units have an advantage in that situation.

I like bringing back this idea, but I would propose a combination of this and a prior suggestion:

-Any unit may fall back out of melee a distance equal to Movement+1D6" (essentially an Advance move, so even if the owner has a 'fall back and still shoot' ability, they are treated as having Advanced).
-If a unit is no longer in melee due to enemies falling back, it may immediately consolidate Movement+1D6".

What this attempts to address is the utility of cheap squads for screening. Under the 3rd Ed-esque system, suppose I want an infantry squad to fall back, so we do the roll-off. If I win, I can choose to only move an inch backwards, exposing your unit to shooting, while still staying a few inches in front of my vehicles that I'm trying to screen for.

By turning it into actual movement, if you want to screen you have to stay in combat. If my Guardsmen fall back out of melee, then you immediately get a significant consolidation move to either catch them as they flee, or get into combat with whatever I was trying to protect. Holding the line means no retreat, and as soon as you start falling back, those melee units start following.

Edit: Out-of-sequence moves and shooting have always been part of the game; that ship has long since sailed. Overwatch gives you extra shooting just because the enemy has decided to charge you. Consolidation in 8th and Sweeping Advance in 3rd let you move extra if you were no longer in combat. These are abstract systems, just as failed charges resulting in you remaining rooted to the spot is an abstract mechanic. What matters is whether the gameplay result is desirable.

 catbarf wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:Yeah, that's fething ridiculous. What about a modification of the trial assault rules from 3rd edition?

At the start of the movement phase any unit locked in combat can attempt to fall back. If the opponent wishes to remain in combat there's a roll off. Each player rolls 1d6 and adds it to their units movement characteristic. If the unit attempting to fall back wins, they fall back successfully. If the attacker wins then the units remain in combat and combat continues in the fight phase as normal.

That would simulate a unit trying to flee from another, which in turn tries to chase it down. Obviously faster units have an advantage in that situation.

I like bringing back this idea, but I would propose a combination of this and a prior suggestion:

-Any unit may fall back out of melee a distance equal to Movement+1D6" (essentially an Advance move, so even if the owner has a 'fall back and still shoot' ability, they are treated as having Advanced).
-If a unit is no longer in melee due to enemies falling back, it may immediately consolidate Movement+1D6".

What this attempts to address is the utility of cheap squads for screening. Under the 3rd Ed-esque system, suppose I want an infantry squad to fall back, so we do the roll-off. If I win, I can choose to only move an inch backwards, exposing your unit to shooting, while still staying a few inches in front of my vehicles that I'm trying to screen for.

By turning it into actual movement, if you want to screen you have to stay in combat. If my Guardsmen fall back out of melee, then you immediately get a significant consolidation move to either catch them as they flee, or get into combat with whatever I was trying to protect. Holding the line means no retreat, and as soon as you start falling back, those melee units start following.

Edit: Out-of-sequence moves and shooting have always been part of the game; that ship has long since sailed. Overwatch gives you extra shooting just because the enemy has decided to charge you. Consolidation in 8th and Sweeping Advance in 3rd let you move extra if you were no longer in combat. These are abstract systems, just as failed charges resulting in you remaining rooted to the spot is an abstract mechanic. What matters is whether the gameplay result is desirable.

Can't speak for everyone else, but I like this idea.

 catbarf wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:Yeah, that's fething ridiculous. What about a modification of the trial assault rules from 3rd edition?

At the start of the movement phase any unit locked in combat can attempt to fall back. If the opponent wishes to remain in combat there's a roll off. Each player rolls 1d6 and adds it to their units movement characteristic. If the unit attempting to fall back wins, they fall back successfully. If the attacker wins then the units remain in combat and combat continues in the fight phase as normal.

That would simulate a unit trying to flee from another, which in turn tries to chase it down. Obviously faster units have an advantage in that situation.

I like bringing back this idea, but I would propose a combination of this and a prior suggestion:

-Any unit may fall back out of melee a distance equal to Movement+1D6" (essentially an Advance move, so even if the owner has a 'fall back and still shoot' ability, they are treated as having Advanced).
-If a unit is no longer in melee due to enemies falling back, it may immediately consolidate Movement+1D6".

What this attempts to address is the utility of cheap squads for screening. Under the 3rd Ed-esque system, suppose I want an infantry squad to fall back, so we do the roll-off. If I win, I can choose to only move an inch backwards, exposing your unit to shooting, while still staying a few inches in front of my vehicles that I'm trying to screen for.

By turning it into actual movement, if you want to screen you have to stay in combat. If my Guardsmen fall back out of melee, then you immediately get a significant consolidation move to either catch them as they flee, or get into combat with whatever I was trying to protect. Holding the line means no retreat, and as soon as you start falling back, those melee units start following.

Edit: Out-of-sequence moves and shooting have always been part of the game; that ship has long since sailed. Overwatch gives you extra shooting just because the enemy has decided to charge you. Consolidation in 8th and Sweeping Advance in 3rd let you move extra if you were no longer in combat. These are abstract systems, just as failed charges resulting in you remaining rooted to the spot is an abstract mechanic. What matters is whether the gameplay result is desirable.

You can 'fall back' sideways and still be able to be in the way of the consolidating unit.

 skchsan wrote:
You can 'fall back' sideways and still be able to be in the way of the consolidating unit.

You can, but under his proposal, your screening unit would almost certainly be caught up in consolidation move of the unit they're falling back from (assuming that move is meant to allow them to land within 1" of enemy units). So if some, let's say, guardsmen move largely sideways and only end up 3" away from your berzerkers, your berzerks are going to catch them and get a second round of melee.

I'm still not a fan of this method though because it's another variation on "the broken thing will only happen sometimes." Plus, it will add a lot of time to the movement phase as we roll d6s and scoot models around. Many of which, currently, would not be moving at all in that movement phase.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm still not a fan of this method though because it's another variation on "the broken thing will only happen sometimes." Plus, it will add a lot of time to the movement phase as we roll d6s and scoot models around. Many of which, currently, would not be moving at all in that movement phase.

Right. Penalizing the unit falling back isn't going to solve the problem. Units that are abusing this mechanic are sacrificial units anyways - it doesn't matter whether they die to 'melee-overwatch', via mortal wounds, etc. Their function is to hold the line back while their heavy hitters remain unscathed, uninterrupted by melee.

To fix fall back, you need to effectively lose ground/board control or don't let units in melee be punished.

 skchsan wrote:

To fix fall back, you need to effectively lose ground/board control or don't let units in melee be punished.

Which is why I still like the idea of giving units protection from shooting on the turn they're fallen back from. It informs your opponent's movement and gives players a reason to bring more small arms or countercharge units.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

To fix fall back, you need to effectively lose ground/board control or don't let units in melee be punished.

Which is why I still like the idea of giving units protection from shooting on the turn they're fallen back from. It informs your opponent's movement and gives players a reason to bring more small arms or countercharge units.

Yup, this is probably the best mechanical solution to the problem.


If you fall back from combat the unit you fell back from cannot be fired on in the following shooting phase, except by pistols.. or something similar. Kind of the same idea as pistols can fire into melee currently so it fits. The idea being that both sides are still sorting themselves out in the following turn. The pistol thing only is fair because it works this rule into the current rules without constantly creating exceptions to rules for rules and exceptions to those exceptions which makes the rules a mess.

My friends and I will playtest the following house rule in the near future:


In your movement phase, if a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit is selected to move, compare the ld values of your unit and the enemy unit. Check the table below and roll a D6. If the roll succeeds, the unit may fall back normally, otherwise the unit may not move this turn.
Same ld, 4+
Own ld higher than enemy ld, 3+
Own ld double of enemy ld, 2+
Own ld lower than enemy ld, 5+
Onw ld half of enemy ld, 6+


I'm very curious how it will play out, but I already see a few benefits:

Simple and quick, only 1 roll
Re-using the table for S vs T - should be easy to remember
ld value and modifying abilities have more meaning
No interaction with other phases, nothing extra to keep in mind
Analogy to charge move, it succeeds and movement happens or it fails and no movement happens

Not sure how to handle a unit within 1" of multiple enemy units. What do you guys think?

 BleachHawk wrote:
My friends and I will playtest the following house rule in the near future:


In your movement phase, if a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit is selected to move, compare the ld values of your unit and the enemy unit. Check the table below and roll a D6. If the roll succeeds, the unit may fall back normally, otherwise the unit may not move this turn.
Same ld, 4+
Own ld higher than enemy ld, 3+
Own ld double of enemy ld, 2+
Own ld lower than enemy ld, 5+
Onw ld half of enemy ld, 6+


I'm very curious how it will play out, but I already see a few benefits:

Simple and quick, only 1 roll
Re-using the table for S vs T - should be easy to remember
ld value and modifying abilities have more meaning
No interaction with other phases, nothing extra to keep in mind
Analogy to charge move, it succeeds and movement happens or it fails and no movement happens

Not sure how to handle a unit within 1" of multiple enemy units. What do you guys think?

Simple and elegant mechanic, but still falls under 'only prevents the problem some of the times' category and has some jarring issues given that cases of double LD would most likely not show up under normal circumstances (which may be justifiable). But I really like the simplicity of it.

I would add a clause "if there are multiple LD values, use the highest".

 BleachHawk wrote:
My friends and I will playtest the following house rule in the near future:


In your movement phase, if a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit is selected to move, compare the ld values of your unit and the enemy unit. Check the table below and roll a D6. If the roll succeeds, the unit may fall back normally, otherwise the unit may not move this turn.
Same ld, 4+
Own ld higher than enemy ld, 3+
Own ld double of enemy ld, 2+
Own ld lower than enemy ld, 5+
Onw ld half of enemy ld, 6+


I'm very curious how it will play out, but I already see a few benefits:

Simple and quick, only 1 roll
Re-using the table for S vs T - should be easy to remember
ld value and modifying abilities have more meaning
No interaction with other phases, nothing extra to keep in mind
Analogy to charge move, it succeeds and movement happens or it fails and no movement happens

Not sure how to handle a unit within 1" of multiple enemy units. What do you guys think?

I like it, though it makes for an odd fluff interaction: my IG infantry are more likely able to fall back when a Commissar is nearby as they can use his leadership... which is not at all how I see that going! But rules wise it looks like it would work quite elegantly.

I’d be interested to hear how this plays when you try it.

Out of curiosity, will you be applying and leadership modifiers based on the outcome of the preceding fight phase?

Aash wrote:
I’d be interested to hear how this plays when you try it.

Out of curiosity, will you be applying and leadership modifiers based on the outcome of the preceding fight phase?

I think it should be devoid of any calculations outside of ability based (i.e. subtract X from leadership, use this model's Ld, etc) to maintain its simplicity.

 skchsan wrote:

Aash wrote:
I’d be interested to hear how this plays when you try it.

Out of curiosity, will you be applying and leadership modifiers based on the outcome of the preceding fight phase?

I think it should be devoid of any calculations outside of ability based (i.e. subtract X from leadership, use this model's Ld, etc) to maintain its simplicity.

I'm inclined to go the other way. While I agree with your above post that this isn't an ideal solution, if we were to go with something like this, it would be fitting for leadership debuffs to impact the ability to fall back. So something like Night Lords would be good at preventing the enemy from falling back in an orderly fashion (instead encouraging them to run away via morale casualties or lash out in a panic).