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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.

Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.

Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.

yes sometimes, but in the case I mentioned where you kill 2 of them, it really isn't a choice, so it is a bad suggestion. If I'm risking losing 3 models worth 100 points, that might live otherwise I just end up stranded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except there's still reasons to fall back EVEN IF IT WIPSE THE SQUAD.

Dark Reapers, sure. It sucks to lose them, they're pricey. But let's say I charge my Wulfen into them, and by some miracle, one lives. The Reaper is, 100% guaranteed, dead if he falls back. But if he DOESN'T... The Wulfen murder him anyway and get free reign on my next turn. Whereas if he DOES fall back, he dies, but then everyone else is free to shoot at them.

Right now, you're right. There IS no choice-you'd fall back without a second thought. But this would make it so there IS thought.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the topic. If the idea is to punish units for falling back with a sort of toned-down sweeping advance, then d3 wounds per 5 models feels about right. You won't have your unit wiped out entirely (unless you only had 3 wounds left in the unit), but you'll lose a chunk of points in exchange for getting out of combat.

If the idea is to make it a "calculated risk," then losing an average of 1 in 6 models isn't the way to do it. I'll gladly give up 1 out of 6 wounds from a screening unit to shoot up an expensive assault unit. What do I care if I lose ~17% of the remaining squad's points value if it means I can shoot 100% of my opponent's assault unit off the table?

As someone who uses Dark Reapers frequently, I can confirm that I will pretty much always opt to fall back in that scenario. If I'm not going to manage to hold the enemy unit up until the end of their own fight phase, I may as well run away (and die) so that my other units can shoot the melee unit up.

Losing 1 wound for every 6 models in a unit is... barely even worth rolling most of the time.

If the real concern is that things like rhinos can tarpit enemy units and encourage them to fall back (thus taking mortal wounds), then I think I'd rather address that as its own issue. People are already a little meh on tarpitting vehicles under the current rules anyway.

Not every unit is a screening unit, and for your dark reapers you are ok with them getting tarpitted by a single marine that charges them then, or you'd still be happy to lose potentially 3 models for the opportunity to kill a single marine. I just think the auto mortal wounds for falling back encourages chump charges into things far too much. Especially when you are talking about killing potentially 60% of a squad (and 50% on average). The other issue with the suggestion is that it suggests a single Grot does the same amount against a falling back unit as 30 ork boyz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?

The point is to let other units shoot the charging enemy squad. Units that fall back should be crippled or destroyed but their move allows other units to delete a melee enemy squad that can't be targeted by firepower while locked in combat.

Sometimes that is the point, sometimes the point is to get a unit away from a tarpit, or move on to an objective with that unit.



Giving it some thought I think the following could work ok.

Falling back deals 1D3 mortal wounds per 5 models in the retreating units. This cannot exceed the number of attacks from units engaged with this unit. IF the engaged unit has S = 1/2 of enemy T or less it cannot deal fallback wounds to an enemy.

But including a general stratagem

1 or 2 CP: hit and run, select a unit during your movement phase. This unit can fall back without penalty.

I'm going to be the impopular guy and suggest that if your unit opts to fall back from melee, it dies. Full stop. Give stuff like Land Raiders, Monoliths, Tyrannofexen and the like some rule to let them back out without dying.

This forces an actual choice: do I sacrifice my unit to shoot the assaulty guys to pieces, or do I keep them in combat to bog them down while I deal with other units? No more free passes for shooting-heavy armies, if someone manages to get into CC with you there should be reprecussions, and heavy ones at that. You'd STILL be better off compared to previous editions because at least you could sacrifice a unit that's already dead anyway.

I'll write that again, just for emphasis: even if you had to sacrifice the entire unit that is locked in combat, you'd STILL be better off than you used to be in previous editions, because you can still punish the melee unit with the rest of the army.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm going to be the impopular guy and suggest that if your unit opts to fall back from melee, it dies. Full stop. Give stuff like Land Raiders, Monoliths, Tyrannofexen and the like some rule to let them back out without dying.

This forces an actual choice: do I sacrifice my unit to shoot the assaulty guys to pieces, or do I keep them in combat to bog them down while I deal with other units? No more free passes for shooting-heavy armies, if someone manages to get into CC with you there should be reprecussions, and heavy ones at that. You'd STILL be better off compared to previous editions because at least you could sacrifice a unit that's already dead anyway.

I'll write that again, just for emphasis: even if you had to sacrifice the entire unit that is locked in combat, you'd STILL be better off than you used to be in previous editions, because you can still punish the melee unit with the rest of the army.

No just No, it is way too easy to lock multiple units in combat. Oh I touched you with pile in, guess you are either dead...you would need way too many exceptions to the rule. This just turns combat back to always locked in combat and the game becomes the big scrum it was in 7th, only earlier.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm going to be the impopular guy and suggest that if your unit opts to fall back from melee, it dies. Full stop. Give stuff like Land Raiders, Monoliths, Tyrannofexen and the like some rule to let them back out without dying.

This forces an actual choice: do I sacrifice my unit to shoot the assaulty guys to pieces, or do I keep them in combat to bog them down while I deal with other units? No more free passes for shooting-heavy armies, if someone manages to get into CC with you there should be reprecussions, and heavy ones at that. You'd STILL be better off compared to previous editions because at least you could sacrifice a unit that's already dead anyway.

I'll write that again, just for emphasis: even if you had to sacrifice the entire unit that is locked in combat, you'd STILL be better off than you used to be in previous editions, because you can still punish the melee unit with the rest of the army.

That's exactly the rules I'd like to have about retreating from combat. Units that fall back are completely destroyed unless they're vehicles or monsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

No just No, it is way too easy to lock multiple units in combat.

Just stay in combat then, no one forces you to run away.

so you like games to be over turn 1 then? I have routinely tied up half my opponents army turn 1. So then the game would be decided at that point? Sorry bad rules are bad, combats that have no way out other than death are bad for the game.

Excepting vehicles and monsters just makes those the only units you'll end up seeing in shooty armies.

Why is it that it is perfectly fine to absolutely murder units by shooting them to pieces turn one, but not to do the same with melee?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that it is perfectly fine to absolutely murder units by shooting them to pieces turn one, but not to do the same with melee?

It is if that is actually what happens. It isn't when you assault with tarpits and negate other units without actually killing them and give them the option to die or do nothing. So if a unit is killy enough to kill a unit in a single turn in close combat fine, but that is not what you are suggesting, you are suggesting allowing a unit to pile into multiple units and essentially kill all of them in a single turn. This can easily happen turn 1. Further terrain should mitigate some ability to delete whatever you want in a single turn with no effort.

You are suggesting something akin to: a unit gets shot by a unit but doesn't die. Now it cannot move again, but if it does it dies.

And proper positioning will stop your opponent from spreading into multiple combats. You're STILL better off against melee than previous editions, and the only melee units that saw competetive play in 7th were Deathstars like the Wulfen that could survive the comically powerful shooting units.

If you don't have something to rein in the massively lopsided power balance between shooting and melee, the units that are meant to be melee threats will have to become ludicruously powerful in order to be worth it. That's what we saw happen in 7th with the Thunderwolf Cavalry. With the loss of sweeping advance, the general reduction in attacks across most units, and the ability to back out of close combat at will shooting has, for the fifth edition in a row (!!) been given yet more legs up over melee. Instead of trying to bandaid this by throwing more and more ridiculous rules at melee units, leaving most melee units that haven't been massively buffed in the dust, making shooting units actually have to think beyond point-and-click is by far preferable.

Again, under my suggestion a shooting unit would STILL be better off than it was last edition, because you have the choice between staying to tarpit or sacrificing your unit to shoot the unit in combat with it. Last edition you had the "choice" of tarpitting, and that's it. Sure, it's easier to get into melee this edition, and you can consolidate into other units, but melee was already weaker than shooting by a massive margin to the point that most melee units were completely irrelevant. Shooting is already more lethal this edition than it used to be, there really needs to be something to rein that madness in.

It never happened in one of my games that an entire army is locked turn 1 and the game is screwed because of that.

Charging turn 1 is also not that easy and every army that can be screwed by a massive turn 1 charge has access to cheap units that screen whatever you don't want to get assaulted. Yes you need expendable units, but I think cheap units should be something normal, or you can bring some tanks for that purpose, they won't die in close combat but they'll also screen the army from charges. Some elite oriented armies with just a few models like harlequins can handle close combat very well so it wouldn't be a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:


You are suggesting something akin to: a unit gets shot by a unit but doesn't die. Now it cannot move again, but if it does it dies.

No, the comparison isn't fair. You can shoot from distance but to get into combat you need 1-2 turns of movement at least and a good dice roll for charge. Assaulting stuff is not that easy, while you can shoot just staying in the same position the entire game.

If my unit gets shot at, the survivors can retreat freely during my turn.

If my unit gets charged, they can retreat during my turn, but not for free unless they fly or somesuch.

You don't lock units in shooting, you lock them in close combat. This is a strength of close combat compared to shooting.

Close combat is also something you can do in addition to shooting, there are pure melee units but most melee units do have ranged weapons.

I think many people are accustomed to how it worked in previous editions, and get upset when it's different. Close combat is more viable than it was in 7th, and it really shouldn't be as orevalent as shooting. This isn't a Bronze Age setting.

I do think ignoring the falling back penalty is too common, but much of this thread just seems to be close combat fanboys who want it to dominate the game.

It is absolutely fair, 1st turn charges are fairly trivial for some armies/units.

Take CSM. Alpha Legion infiltrate berserkers, 9" away, move 6" turn 1. Make a 3" charge. Pile in twice. Kill screen in combat, pile into units behind screen. Now it won't always happen, but it will happen. Doesn't require 2 turns of movement, or a good dice roll for a charge.

Marines can do the same, as can ad mech I believe.

Orks can "deepstrikes" with a bunch of units that re-roll charge range which means some will get in. GSC can and deploy closer.

Heldrakes can move far enough as to make turn 1 charges trivial.

You can also move up behind LOS blocking terrain and assault through walls.

Assaulting stuff isn't as hard as you make it out to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And proper positioning will stop your opponent from spreading into multiple combats. You're STILL better off against melee than previous editions, and the only melee units that saw competetive play in 7th were Deathstars like the Wulfen that could survive the comically powerful shooting units.

If you don't have something to rein in the massively lopsided power balance between shooting and melee, the units that are meant to be melee threats will have to become ludicruously powerful in order to be worth it. That's what we saw happen in 7th with the Thunderwolf Cavalry. With the loss of sweeping advance, the general reduction in attacks across most units, and the ability to back out of close combat at will shooting has, for the fifth edition in a row (!!) been given yet more legs up over melee. Instead of trying to bandaid this by throwing more and more ridiculous rules at melee units, leaving most melee units that haven't been massively buffed in the dust, making shooting units actually have to think beyond point-and-click is by far preferable.

Again, under my suggestion a shooting unit would STILL be better off than it was last edition, because you have the choice between staying to tarpit or sacrificing your unit to shoot the unit in combat with it. Last edition you had the "choice" of tarpitting, and that's it. Sure, it's easier to get into melee this edition, and you can consolidate into other units, but melee was already weaker than shooting by a massive margin to the point that most melee units were completely irrelevant. Shooting is already more lethal this edition than it used to be, there really needs to be something to rein that madness in.

It is comical that you think melee units are somehow worse in this edition. Most have equal or more attacks, not less. The only difference is no +1 on the charge, but to make up for that most melee units hit on 3s instead of hitting on 4s. They get to strike first, which is different for some units. They have longer charge range, they get to pile in to other units.

Positioning such that pile ins can hit nothing is tough for many gunline armies.

I agree that fall back shouldn't be free, but nor should it be death to the unit. That is just too open to abuse.

Hence, I think the best answer is that fall back only happens on a 4+, and not at all vs Wyches.

Martel732 wrote:
Hence, I think the best answer is that fall back only happens on a 4+, and not at all vs Wyches.

The issue I have with that solution is it leaves a big portion of the game up to a 50-50 roll. I think that could work if there were a penalty to failing (otherwise why not try) like taking mortal wounds if you fail to get away. Then allow for modifiers on the roll (units with Fly could get +1 to their roll, larger units cause a -1, tanks give opponents +1 if they are the only unit engaged etc.)

I'm always in favor of modifiers, so sure.

I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)

If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.

I would say falling back should be tied to the size of the squad.

5 models or less = automatic fall back. You charged something that is small. It doesn't take a coordinated effort to retreat.

6-10 = fall back on a 2+
11-15 = fall back on a 3+
16-20 = fall back on a 4+
21+ = fall back on a 5+

It would take more coordination to fall back as a larger squad. Also, units that fall back are subject to full morale losses.

Vehicles should also be able to fall back through charging models.

Breng77 wrote:


Not every unit is a screening unit, and for your dark reapers you are ok with them getting tarpitted by a single marine that charges them then, or you'd still be happy to lose potentially 3 models for the opportunity to kill a single marine. I just think the auto mortal wounds for falling back encourages chump charges into things far too much. Especially when you are talking about killing potentially 60% of a squad (and 50% on average). The other issue with the suggestion is that it suggests a single Grot does the same amount against a falling back unit as 30 ork boyz.

I'd probably leave my dark reapers tied up with a marine because he's not likely to wipe the reapers out on my own. Thus the "pretty much always" instead of "always" in my post. But if my reapers aren't likely to survive the turn against whatever they're in melee with, there's not much downside to falling back and letting the rest of my army shoot the enemy unit up. I'll stay in melee with a grot. I won't stay in melee with a daemon prince.

As for "chump charges," if the unit charging me is a small, weakened unit with no real chance of hurting me... chances are good that I'll win that fight anyway. A lone space marine charging a 30 boy mob is going to struggle to hold them up for even a single turn (good chance the orks kill him on the charging marines' own turn). If the enemy unit doesn't have much chance of killing me off but is itself relatively durable, then that's a tarpit unit. Tarpitting in general warrants a discussion all its own, but I'm not convinced people should just be able to walk away from dedicated tarpit units leaving them to get blasted off the table.

As for the one gretchin being as lethal as an ork mob thing... I wouldn't be opposed to your "wounds capped out by the number of attacks in the 'chasing' unit" suggestion. Although I will point out that this is the first edition in a long while (ever?) where a lone gretchin wasn't potentially able to kill 29 boyz in a sweeping advance after getting insanely lucky and killing just one of them. So compared to that, losing about half your wounds when you (intentionally choose to) fall back doesn't seem so bad.

Breng77 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
yes but if it is punitive to the point where it is no longer a viable option what is the point?

The point is to let other units shoot the charging enemy squad. Units that fall back should be crippled or destroyed but their move allows other units to delete a melee enemy squad that can't be targeted by firepower while locked in combat.

Sometimes that is the point, sometimes the point is to get a unit away from a tarpit, or move on to an objective with that unit.

As a guy who plays a lot of fast-but-squishy assault armies, being able to just walk away from a unit and then have your friends blast it off the table kind of stinks. :( Regardless of whether or not you're in a position to unload on the exposed assault unit, being able to more or less opt out of every other fight phase and give yourself the option to shoot at said squishy assault units is pretty annoying.

Breng77 wrote:

Giving it some thought I think the following could work ok.

Falling back deals 1D3 mortal wounds per 5 models in the retreating units. This cannot exceed the number of attacks from units engaged with this unit. IF the engaged unit has S = 1/2 of enemy T or less it cannot deal fallback wounds to an enemy.

But including a general stratagem

1 or 2 CP: hit and run, select a unit during your movement phase. This unit can fall back without penalty.

I wouldn't hate that. It has a lot more fiddly bits than most rules in 8th, but I think it would work just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
I would say falling back should be tied to the size of the squad.

5 models or less = automatic fall back. You charged something that is small. It doesn't take a coordinated effort to retreat.

6-10 = fall back on a 2+
11-15 = fall back on a 3+
16-20 = fall back on a 4+
21+ = fall back on a 5+

It would take more coordination to fall back as a larger squad. Also, units that fall back are subject to full morale losses.

Vehicles should also be able to fall back through charging models.

Wait, are you suggesting that units falling back have an easier time doing so if they're smaller? I get that it's easier to coordinate fewer guys, but smaller squad sizes also imply that you're more likely to be outnumbered by your opponent. It seems weird that 5 guardsmen running away from 10 marines should have an easier time getting away than 30 guardsmen. After all, the marines have fewer targets to gun/chase down as they flee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kaotkbliss wrote:
I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)

If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.

Leadership tests don't quite work that way these days. They're taken on a 1d6 test, usually adding modifiers (like the number of bodies you lost) and comparing that to your (lower than it used to be) leadership value. So unless you introduced a "new" 2d6 leadership mechanic, most units would never be able to fail such a test.

I'm not a huge fan of a test to fall back anyway though as it doesn't really create any interesting decisions. It just adds more rolling. If you want to fall back, you want to fall back. You'll try to fall back no matter what, and whether or not you succeed is just a matter of luck. It's either, "Well, I'm stuck here, and that stinks and there's nothing I can do about it," or else it's, "Well, I got away through no skill or effort of my own. Guess you're stuck with your loin cloth blowing in the wind, friend."

As someone who plays wyches, I personally don't love the 50/50 shot of keeping units from falling back. Sure, it's nice to tie people up when they want to run away, but it basically boils down to me having a 50/50 shot of losing my wyches next turn. Either I keep you in melee or you run off and shoot my squishy wyches to bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why is it that it is perfectly fine to absolutely murder units by shooting them to pieces turn one, but not to do the same with melee?

I think the main issue here is that once you hit the enemy lines, the game is mostly decided based on how many bodies you have left and how many times you accidentally finish off a unit on your own turn instead of your opponent's. Once you're in your opponent's face, if he doesn't have the mobility to absolutely sprint away from the melee (assuming you don't have even more assault units coming to catch those fleeing), then he's pretty much just standing there waiting for you to roll fight phase after fight phase.

You know how it really stinks when a gunline blasts your assault army off the table before it even gets to charge in and do its thing? This is the melee version of that. Where you prevent huge chunks of your opponent's army from ever getting to fire more than an overwatch shot.

Actually, this is kind of the crux of this topic, overwatch topics, and a lot of other discussions that we see here in Proposed Rules pretty often. Assault has always had something of a "lock down" element to make up for the fact that assault units have to spend the first half of the game jogging across the table. But if the assault units get across the table too quickly or without taking enough casualties, then the game quickly switches from "My gunline has fun while your assault army just moves forward" to "My assault army has fun while your gunline just runs away and/or dies." This is a big part of why armies with both shooty and assault elements tend to be more interesting for me; they're less prone to this extreme swing.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kaotkbliss wrote:
I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)

If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.

Leadership tests don't quite work that way these days. They're taken on a 1d6 test, usually adding modifiers (like the number of bodies you lost) and comparing that to your (lower than it used to be) leadership value. So unless you introduced a "new" 2d6 leadership mechanic, most units would never be able to fail such a test.

I'm not a huge fan of a test to fall back anyway though as it doesn't really create any interesting decisions. It just adds more rolling. If you want to fall back, you want to fall back. You'll try to fall back no matter what, and whether or not you succeed is just a matter of luck. It's either, "Well, I'm stuck here, and that stinks and there's nothing I can do about it," or else it's, "Well, I got away through no skill or effort of my own. Guess you're stuck with your loin cloth blowing in the wind, friend."

As someone who plays wyches, I personally don't love the 50/50 shot of keeping units from falling back. Sure, it's nice to tie people up when they want to run away, but it basically boils down to me having a 50/50 shot of losing my wyches next turn. Either I keep you in melee or you run off and shoot my squishy wyches to bits.

Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of - the player decides to fall back, makes a quick roll (more disciplined troops should have a better chance than wild, erratic ones). If they pass the test, they fall back without issue, if they fail then they still fall back, but the opposing unit gets a free round of attacks on them as they flee.

Since LD no longer works the same, there's got to be another method of testing.

kaotkbliss wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kaotkbliss wrote:
I'm not sure if the game still has psychology or not
but what if the unit wanting to fall back needs to pass a leadership test first?
Then it's just a single roll and better units will have a better chance (getting rid of the 50/50 chance for everything)

If they fail the LD test, then the unit is broken and needs to regroup before being able to do anything else as well as taking a free round of hits from the enemy unit.

Leadership tests don't quite work that way these days. They're taken on a 1d6 test, usually adding modifiers (like the number of bodies you lost) and comparing that to your (lower than it used to be) leadership value. So unless you introduced a "new" 2d6 leadership mechanic, most units would never be able to fail such a test.

I'm not a huge fan of a test to fall back anyway though as it doesn't really create any interesting decisions. It just adds more rolling. If you want to fall back, you want to fall back. You'll try to fall back no matter what, and whether or not you succeed is just a matter of luck. It's either, "Well, I'm stuck here, and that stinks and there's nothing I can do about it," or else it's, "Well, I got away through no skill or effort of my own. Guess you're stuck with your loin cloth blowing in the wind, friend."

As someone who plays wyches, I personally don't love the 50/50 shot of keeping units from falling back. Sure, it's nice to tie people up when they want to run away, but it basically boils down to me having a 50/50 shot of losing my wyches next turn. Either I keep you in melee or you run off and shoot my squishy wyches to bits.

Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of - the player decides to fall back, makes a quick roll (more disciplined troops should have a better chance than wild, erratic ones). If they pass the test, they fall back without issue, if they fail then they still fall back, but the opposing unit gets a free round of attacks on them as they flee.

Since LD no longer works the same, there's got to be another method of testing.

I'd be alright with something like that, but it suffers from all the above critiques of a "make some attacks against them" suggestions. Specifically that it's an all-or nothing deal and that it ends up being a fair bit of rolling for not a lot of effect (unless you get really lucky/unlucky). Doing something like the "dX mortal wounds per Y models in the fleeing squad" suggestion means that you will reliably do at least some damage and that you can resolve that damage with a single roll.

Both sides could roll d6 and add their leadership. The winner can decide whether or not to flee.

Orks would love that with their leadership 30...

There is simple fix:

Fall back occurs at the end of the movement phase. Unless a specific rule allows you to fall back first (i.e. fly, doctrines/orders)

Swift units will be able to make a tactical back step for your shooty guys to dakka. If they are regular infantry they can't move out as fast out of combat to give your shooty guys dakka.

I mean this could potentially give jump pack squads a new life as proper counter assault units that are able to deny grounds for advancing enemy

 skchsan wrote:
There is simple fix:

Fall back occurs at the end of the movement phase. Unless a specific rule allows you to fall back first (i.e. fly, doctrines/orders)

Swift units will be able to make a tactical back step for your shooty guys to dakka. If they are regular infantry they can't move out as fast out of combat to give your shooty guys dakka.

I mean this could potentially give jump pack squads a new life as proper counter assault units that are able to deny grounds for advancing enemy

How does this change anything?

 skchsan wrote:
There is simple fix:

Fall back occurs at the end of the movement phase. Unless a specific rule allows you to fall back first (i.e. fly, doctrines/orders)

Swift units will be able to make a tactical back step for your shooty guys to dakka. If they are regular infantry they can't move out as fast out of combat to give your shooty guys dakka.

I mean this could potentially give jump pack squads a new life as proper counter assault units that are able to deny grounds for advancing enemy

I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Are you proposing that only certain units (like units with Fly or certain chapter tactics) be able to fall back at all? I don't see how just moving Fall Back to the end of the movement phase changes anything...

Wyldhunt wrote:


I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Are you proposing that only certain units (like units with Fly or certain chapter tactics) be able to fall back at all? I don't see how just moving Fall Back to the end of the movement phase changes anything...

Sorry I meant shooting phase.

The current predicament with fall back is that it is extremely disadvantageous for assault units that weathered this and that just to get into combat, onlyfor the target to simply retreat.

By tying up fall back move with shooting (like the old run move), and allow fall back to occur at the end of shooting phase, it only allows the player who fell back chance to 'switch out' the target of charge. They will no longer be able to bait out a storm of fire but only counter charges.

If the model has fly keyword, that unit can disengage from the fight anytime during the shooting phase. It will be a tactical usage of units with fly, given that the changes made to 'interceptor' like rules gave another potential weakness to non-flyer units that also have 'fly' keyword.

It could also make pistols more relevant as they will be allowed to make normal pistol shots when locked in combat, before the fall back is allowed.

Say, you have a group of nob bikers with PKs storming at you from the flank, one turn away from charging your vindicators harrassing his boys. You have a unit of jump pack marines, and your assault termies happen to be two turns worth of movement away. You block his bikers advance with your assault marines, whom get charged by the nobs. next tur, your assault termies are in range for optimal assualt range to the nobs. The assault marines now shoot their pistols and disengage, for the termies to get their charge in to deal with the bikers.

To male it simpler, it can also be tied to charge phase where models locked in combat are allowed to make a 'charge' move out of it as discussed earlier.

retreating after the shooting phase sounds great...but which players among the shooty armies (GW's favorites) would agree to this?

Has anyone thought of using morale like in previous editions?

If a unit falls back from close combat, it must make a morale test. Each model falling back counts as if it were a "casualty" for the purpose of this morale test. Units with Fly can take an automatic success (but the retreating unit cannot shoot in the owner's following turn)or roll normally (and the retreating unit may fire in their following shooting phase), and fearless units get to halve the modifier to the d6 roll.

How's that sound?

Talinsin wrote:
Has anyone thought of using morale like in previous editions?

If a unit falls back from close combat, it must make a morale test. Each model falling back counts as if it were a "casualty" for the purpose of this morale test. Units with Fly can take an automatic success (but the retreating unit cannot shoot in the owner's following turn)or roll normally (and the retreating unit may fire in their following shooting phase), and fearless units get to halve the modifier to the d6 roll.

How's that sound?

Eh... Makes it easier for smaller models to run away. And a lot of people have morale immunity, or as good as that.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Talinsin wrote:
Has anyone thought of using morale like in previous editions?

If a unit falls back from close combat, it must make a morale test. Each model falling back counts as if it were a "casualty" for the purpose of this morale test. Units with Fly can take an automatic success (but the retreating unit cannot shoot in the owner's following turn)or roll normally (and the retreating unit may fire in their following shooting phase), and fearless units get to halve the modifier to the d6 roll.

How's that sound?

Eh... Makes it easier for smaller models to run away. And a lot of people have morale immunity, or as good as that.

Simplify...roll a d6, that many mortal wounds hit the unit. Small units really are in a pickle, but that seems correct. 3 marines left after being besieged by 30 orks? They shouldn't be able to just walk away while the orks do nothing.

Dudes like g-man or Morty get a few scrapes but survive. Perfectly fluffy.

Units with fly get d3 mortal wounds. Nobody may advance, shoot or charge.

This fix is so easy, fast and simple I would think many of us could agree to it (except for the fellows who dislike mortal wounds... )

 JimOnMars wrote:

Simplify...roll a d6, that many mortal wounds hit the unit. Small units really are in a pickle, but that seems correct. 3 marines left after being besieged by 30 orks? They shouldn't be able to just walk away while the orks do nothing.

Dudes like g-man or Morty get a few scrapes but survive. Perfectly fluffy.

Units with fly get d3 mortal wounds. Nobody may advance, shoot or charge.

This fix is so easy, fast and simple I would think many of us could agree to it (except for the fellows who dislike mortal wounds... )

Right, G-man suffers 6 mortal wounds and dies (he already lost some wounds) when he falls back from some hormagaunts. He tripped on some dry wood lying around and went head first to the ground hitting a stone

Want an easy fix ? Is your WS higher than the enemy ? You can fallback no problem. Is the WS equal ? Both players roll a dice, higher number wins. Is your WS lower than the enemy ? You cant fallback.

Have the retreating unit roll a d6 for each model in the unit. For each 6 the retreating unit takes a MORTAL wound. Retreating Vehicles, SHV, 10+ wound monsters and characters(etc) instead roll a d6 for each model they are engaged with and take a REGULAR wound on a 6. Vehicles, SHV and the like engaged with a similar unit take d3 (d6?) MORTAL wounds.

Primarchs won't get murdered by lone grots, hordes can still multi charge lots of units and increase the likelihood of capturing lots of opponents, small elite units don't get instantly murdered if they opt to fall back, but still could if they roll badly. S2 models will get a large buff against tanks, but the tanks will at least be able to use their bumper. Mortarion deciding to run away from a Knight is going to get stung a bit.

My 2+ WS is better than your 3+ WS.