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:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Ice_can wrote:

 Therion wrote:
My source also says overwatch is gone entirely, so, I think that will/would shock some people.

Given PA was supposedly writen for 9th then why is their a strategums in Enginer war that says after you have fired overwatch do X? Thing your source might be wrong on this.

Didn't they also say that not everything from PA would make the cut when they redo any armies codex? There could easily be a few rules written with 8th in mind added to be cut fairly early into 9th.

Nope they pretty much said they currently have zero intention of doing so, 'everything as far back as vigilous is 9th edition compatable and will be playable even with the new codex's.
Maybe what they ment was an unrelated FaQ and Errata'd to where your better just carrying the PDF around version will be legal in 9th.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Sounds like everything costs stratagems!

But yeah. Fall Back is this big boogeyman that really doesn't come up outside of competitive environments, in my experience. If people cannot understand that this stratagem is actually a fairly big deal? That's on them.

What. The. feth. ?

KurtAngle2 wrote:

You're a bad player and you should actually feel ashamed for even spreading lies and bad evidence all around

So basically, you have nothing to refute my anecdotal evidence(which I flatout qualified as "my experience") other than ad hominems?

Cool.

Who do you play against? Seriously.

Fall back is game changing EVERY game I'm in.

Ice_can wrote:
Nope they pretty much said they currently have zero intention of doing so, 'everything as far back as vigilous is 9th edition compatable and will be playable even with the new codex's.
Maybe what they ment was an unrelated FaQ and Errata'd to where your better just carrying the PDF around version will be legal in 9th.

They literally made a statement that they would be cutting rules from PA when they consolidate things into the new codices. I could find a quote for you, but if you can't be bothered to follow the news I feel no compulsion to spoon feed you public information.

Oh, wait. Are playing gunline vs gunline matches?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Nope they pretty much said they currently have zero intention of doing so, 'everything as far back as vigilous is 9th edition compatable and will be playable even with the new codex's.
Maybe what they ment was an unrelated FaQ and Errata'd to where your better just carrying the PDF around version will be legal in 9th.

They literally made a statement that they would be cutting rules from PA when they consolidate things into the new codices. I could find a quote for you, but if you can't be bothered to follow the news I feel no compulsion to spoon feed you public information.

And in the same live stream they said if you had the older books the strategums would still be playable, hence the mess we have with Vigilous still being legal even though it was designed to buff a far weaker marine codex.

Which I find total BS as they are treating 2 year old books the same as book's that will spend less than a montb under 8th edition rules the same.

I thought all the Vigilous stuff was obsolete?

Martel732 wrote:
I thought all the Vigilous stuff was obsolete?

No, hence why you have seige breaker cohort Imperial Fists Centurions doing dumb levels of MW's.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Sounds like everything costs stratagems!

But yeah. Fall Back is this big boogeyman that really doesn't come up outside of competitive environments, in my experience. If people cannot understand that this stratagem is actually a fairly big deal? That's on them.

Fall back is not a boogeyman, it's a huge deal and makes a massive difference. There is a reason there is a big push to do something serious about it.

This strat is not that good at all, there needs to be additional rule changes to do something about this. the strat is nowhere near enough to fix it.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I thought all the Vigilous stuff was obsolete?

No, hence why you have seige breaker cohort Imperial Fists Centurions doing dumb levels of MW's.

My guess is the stuff will be obsolete pretty soon but who knows? GW already wants us to pay for more rules which we shouldn't do. It just encourages their bad behavior.

 Sasori wrote:

Fall back is not a boogeyman, it's a huge deal and makes a massive difference. There is a reason there is a big push to do something serious about it.

This strat is not that good at all, there needs to be additional rule changes to do something about this. the strat is nowhere near enough to fix it.

Don't put words in my mouth. Never said it was a fix. I said that it is a big deal.

Because it is. Getting potential Mortal Wounds off of models that was within Engagement Range(guessing 3"?) of the falling back unit? That's not exactly small potatoes. Especially stacked with the existing stratagems that do similar.

With regards to Fall Back being a boogeyman? It absolutely is. It's the new "lasguns can kill Baneblades!". Everyone has these ridiculous "what if..." scenarios where everything aligns perfectly for the other player but never for them. The new scenery rules sound like they'll potentially be a big fix for some of this crap, as does the fact that tables now have suggested terrain densities. No more of this "rolling fields" crap.

 Kanluwen wrote:

With regards to Fall Back being a boogeyman? It absolutely is.

Yeah, no. Being able to walk away from CC without repercussion and allowing your entire allied forces to fire at the enemy combatants is brutal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Sounds like everything costs stratagems!

But yeah. Fall Back is this big boogeyman that really doesn't come up outside of competitive environments, in my experience. If people cannot understand that this stratagem is actually a fairly big deal? That's on them.

So if it comes up in competitive environments.. That means it's used by people who actually understand how good it is. Meaning that you've completely argued against yourself and that you've weakened your position in the argument in a very substantial way.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Because it is. Getting potential Mortal Wounds off of models that was within Engagement Range(guessing 3"?) of the falling back unit? That's not exactly small potatoes. Especially stacked with the existing stratagems that do similar.

With regards to Fall Back being a boogeyman? It absolutely is. It's the new "lasguns can kill Baneblades!". Everyone has these ridiculous "what if..." scenarios where everything aligns perfectly for the other player but never for them. The new scenery rules sound like they'll potentially be a big fix for some of this crap, as does the fact that tables now have suggested terrain densities. No more of this "rolling fields" crap.

It's just melee overwatch that costs a strategem. How often does Overwatch help things again? Specially when you are using Strategems that are far better and more worthwhile?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

Fall back is not a boogeyman, it's a huge deal and makes a massive difference. There is a reason there is a big push to do something serious about it.

This strat is not that good at all, there needs to be additional rule changes to do something about this. the strat is nowhere near enough to fix it.

Don't put words in my mouth. Never said it was a fix. I said that it is a big deal.

Because it is. Getting potential Mortal Wounds off of models that was within Engagement Range(guessing 3"?) of the falling back unit? That's not exactly small potatoes. Especially stacked with the existing stratagems that do similar.

With regards to Fall Back being a boogeyman? It absolutely is. It's the new "lasguns can kill Baneblades!". Everyone has these ridiculous "what if..." scenarios where everything aligns perfectly for the other player but never for them. The new scenery rules sound like they'll potentially be a big fix for some of this crap, as does the fact that tables now have suggested terrain densities. No more of this "rolling fields" crap.

You're just wrong here Kan, that strat is going to do nearly nothing. It is not a big deal at all

There is a reason that there is almost a full consensus about fall back being a problem, and that's because it is. The fact that the GW team acknowledged that it's an issue points to that. You can put your fingers in your ears, but that's not going to change it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Adaptive Exoskeleton: 6++ for gaunts.
Bio-metallic Cysts: Improves AP of all Scything Talon weapons by one.

A couple Malanthropes and a Swarmlord, with other stratagems, you can have 90 Hgants in melee turn 2 if you went first, maybe easier if you went second and they came closer. I know it doesn't sound that good, but it really is when you think about 0 moral, and 120 6++/-1 running at you with 6" pile ins and consolidates. Especially when they are only 600pts, sand 1000 after the 3 HQ's, so you still can have Hive Guard, Warriors, and w/e you want.

OK... dont wanna derail the thread but woah..always loved my swarmy gaunts! up til now the only ones I've got any use out of are the always dependable Kraken Gargoyles.

Back on topic...

Call me a fool, call me naive, but I still think this strat is going to be a LOT more useful than people think.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Sounds like everything costs stratagems!

But yeah. Fall Back is this big boogeyman that really doesn't come up outside of competitive environments, in my experience. If people cannot understand that this stratagem is actually a fairly big deal? That's on them.

So if it comes up in competitive environments.. That means it's used by people who actually understand how good it is. Meaning that you've completely argued against yourself and that you've weakened your position in the argument in a very substantial way.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Because it is. Getting potential Mortal Wounds off of models that was within Engagement Range(guessing 3"?) of the falling back unit? That's not exactly small potatoes. Especially stacked with the existing stratagems that do similar.

With regards to Fall Back being a boogeyman? It absolutely is. It's the new "lasguns can kill Baneblades!". Everyone has these ridiculous "what if..." scenarios where everything aligns perfectly for the other player but never for them. The new scenery rules sound like they'll potentially be a big fix for some of this crap, as does the fact that tables now have suggested terrain densities. No more of this "rolling fields" crap.

It's just melee overwatch that costs a strategem. How often does Overwatch help things again? Specially when you are using Strategems that are far better and more worthwhile?

It's worse than that. Because it's a generic stratagem, it's unlikely to have any synergy with anything within an army. You're never going to have a situation where it can be improved, vs the number of rules that improve overwatch to make it extremely powerful. You can only do a MW on a 6 per model, vs something like Greater Good which lets more models attack in overwatch, Chapter traits that can you get you to hitting on 5+ (or even 4+ with other strats), or indirect buffs with anything that stacks on 6s to hit (like tesla) or rerolls misses (captain/chapter master aura)

princeyg wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Adaptive Exoskeleton: 6++ for gaunts.
Bio-metallic Cysts: Improves AP of all Scything Talon weapons by one.

A couple Malanthropes and a Swarmlord, with other stratagems, you can have 90 Hgants in melee turn 2 if you went first, maybe easier if you went second and they came closer. I know it doesn't sound that good, but it really is when you think about 0 moral, and 120 6++/-1 running at you with 6" pile ins and consolidates. Especially when they are only 600pts, sand 1000 after the 3 HQ's, so you still can have Hive Guard, Warriors, and w/e you want.

OK... dont wanna derail the thread but woah..always loved my swarmy gaunts! up til now the only ones I've got any use out of are the always dependable Kraken Gargoyles.

Back on topic...

Call me a fool, call me naive, but I still think this strat is going to be a LOT more useful than people think.

You still need to hit a unit that they can't just sacrifice.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

Fall back is not a boogeyman, it's a huge deal and makes a massive difference. There is a reason there is a big push to do something serious about it.

This strat is not that good at all, there needs to be additional rule changes to do something about this. the strat is nowhere near enough to fix it.

Don't put words in my mouth. Never said it was a fix. I said that it is a big deal.

Because it is. Getting potential Mortal Wounds off of models that was within Engagement Range(guessing 3"?) of the falling back unit? That's not exactly small potatoes. Especially stacked with the existing stratagems that do similar.

With regards to Fall Back being a boogeyman? It absolutely is. It's the new "lasguns can kill Baneblades!". Everyone has these ridiculous "what if..." scenarios where everything aligns perfectly for the other player but never for them. The new scenery rules sound like they'll potentially be a big fix for some of this crap, as does the fact that tables now have suggested terrain densities. No more of this "rolling fields" crap.

WTF are you talking about? Fall back has been a problem ALL EDITION.

princeyg wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Adaptive Exoskeleton: 6++ for gaunts.
Bio-metallic Cysts: Improves AP of all Scything Talon weapons by one.

A couple Malanthropes and a Swarmlord, with other stratagems, you can have 90 Hgants in melee turn 2 if you went first, maybe easier if you went second and they came closer. I know it doesn't sound that good, but it really is when you think about 0 moral, and 120 6++/-1 running at you with 6" pile ins and consolidates. Especially when they are only 600pts, sand 1000 after the 3 HQ's, so you still can have Hive Guard, Warriors, and w/e you want.

OK... dont wanna derail the thread but woah..always loved my swarmy gaunts! up til now the only ones I've got any use out of are the always dependable Kraken Gargoyles.

Back on topic...

Call me a fool, call me naive, but I still think this strat is going to be a LOT more useful than people think.

It will help, but not more than a band-aid at best. There were much better ways this could have been handled out of the gate.

I suspect we'll see it evolve further down the line, improved strategies that give you your full attacks, other strategies that synergize to reroll, etc. I think GW is trying the ultraconservative route first and will loosen it up as we get further into 9th.

Martel732 wrote:
"Falling back is NOT a bad rule in itself, it just did not have the possibility of any downsides where now it does."

It's not really much of a downside. And they will still do it so they can mow down your 90 gaunts.

Ok, so I get what you are saying, but frankly that is exactly what the gaunts are for!!

So yes, they will probably die (hell I've had two 5 man squad of marine scouts hold out for 4 consecutive combat against them) but my somewhat indifferent attitude to losing models may be down to the fact that I'm not coming at this from a tourny POV.

Oh, and lets not forget the board control advantage that forcing my opponents backwards brings.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So if it comes up in competitive environments.. That means it's used by people who actually understand how good it is. Meaning that you've completely argued against yourself and that you've weakened your position in the argument in a very substantial way.

These are the same people that insisted that lasguns would be overpowered, yeah?

Still waiting on that one.

It's just melee overwatch that costs a strategem. How often does Overwatch help things again? Specially when you are using Strategems that are far better and more worthwhile?

Well yeah, it's this "melee overwatch" that has been called out as costing a Command Point.

Unlike normal Overwatch though, this applies to every fricking model touching the unit that is falling back. And unlike normal Overwatch, it generates Mortal Wounds.
You lot have talked about having to tritip, wrap, yaddayaddayadda just to ensure that you get a unit into combat. Now you get aversion of Overwatch, generating Mortal Wounds, that is based upon being within combat range of the unit in question...and it "does nothing"? It's "not a big deal"? It's "too expensive" for a single Command Point?!

I get that melee has problems. This right here? This ain't a problem.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

It's worse than that. Because it's a generic stratagem, it's unlikely to have any synergy with anything within an army. You're never going to have a situation where it can be improved, vs the number of rules that improve overwatch to make it extremely powerful. You can only do a MW on a 6 per model, vs something like Greater Good which lets more models attack in overwatch, Chapter traits that can you get you to hitting on 5+ (or even 4+ with other strats), or indirect buffs with anything that stacks on 6s to hit (like tesla) or rerolls misses (captain/chapter master aura)

Greater Good lets more models attack in Overwatch, but sacrifices their own Overwatch.
You know that, right?

It doesn't help elite armies at all, thats what i don't like.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So if it comes up in competitive environments.. That means it's used by people who actually understand how good it is. Meaning that you've completely argued against yourself and that you've weakened your position in the argument in a very substantial way.

These are the same people that insisted that lasguns would be overpowered, yeah?

Still waiting on that one.

Congratulations, you managed to cherry pick a stupid argument that only a few people made early on. Do you have an actual argument? At all? Come on now, because this isn't one and doesn't defend your position at all.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Well yeah, it's this "melee overwatch" that has been called out as costing a Command Point.

Unlike normal Overwatch though, this applies to every fricking model touching the unit that is falling back. And unlike normal Overwatch, it generates Mortal Wounds.
You lot have talked about having to tritip, wrap, yaddayaddayadda just to ensure that you get a unit into combat. Now you get aversion of Overwatch, generating Mortal Wounds, that is based upon being within combat range of the unit in question...and it "does nothing"? It's "not a big deal"? It's "too expensive" for a single Command Point?!

I get that melee has problems. This right here? This ain't a problem.

It's still a 6+, I'll let you do the math on how many models you need to have properly touching to get more then 1 mortal wound. It doesn't help melee armies with low model counts. It doesn't help armies that have a ton of models either. It's not even a bandaid. It's not helpful.

Gonna be honest. I play orks with a decent amount of models, and I play against a lot of units with fly who I can't pin or tie down. I'm pretty sure every so often this stratagem will be the difference between a battlesuit commander getting away on 2 wounds or dying. Yes the unit will still be out in the open and likely shot down, but for a CP or 2 it still can change an opponents plans, maybe force them to do different things with the simple threat of this stratagem being in the background.

Is it the best thing in the world to change how fallback works? No probably not, but other options such as initiative checks would require much larger reworks and generate other issues. Anyone remember the days of entire units being run down by one spanker with a high initiative winning a fight by one and instagibbing a 100+ pt unit? (Damn so many stupid rule interactions have happened over the years in 40K and Fantasy)

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's just melee overwatch that costs a strategem. How often does Overwatch help things again? Specially when you are using Strategems that are far better and more worthwhile?

Well yeah, it's this "melee overwatch" that has been called out as costing a Command Point.

Unlike normal Overwatch though, this applies to every fricking model touching the unit that is falling back. And unlike normal Overwatch, it generates Mortal Wounds.
You lot have talked about having to tritip, wrap, yaddayaddayadda just to ensure that you get a unit into combat. Now you get aversion of Overwatch, generating Mortal Wounds, that is based upon being within combat range of the unit in question...and it "does nothing"? It's "not a big deal"? It's "too expensive" for a single Command Point?!

I get that melee has problems. This right here? This ain't a problem.

This "Melee overwatch" is only useful for hoard units. Elite melee units such as Thunder Calvary can expect to generate, what, 1 mortal wound? Where as if they were given an equivalent of overwatch (full attacks hitting on 6's) would cause more damage.

You are right that Melee has problems. I can't count the number of times that I've charged a full heath 8 wound Chaos Daemon Character into a gunline unit and had it obliterated due to overwatch. It puts me in a position where I can literally do nothing to hurt the enemy. That's not fun. And there is nothing I can do about it because the rest of my army has been blown off the board in the proceeding turns. And before you tell me to deep strike units, that doesn't work either. I've had 30 man blood letter units come down, get blown apart by auspex scan and overwatch, and had 3 models make it into combat! 3 models doesn't do squat and gets wiped out by the proceeding return attacks.

If "Melee overwatch" deserves to be a strategem, then so should regular overwatch. Although, to be honest, I would prefer the concept of overwatch to disappear.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

With regards to Fall Back being a boogeyman? It absolutely is.

Yeah, no. Being able to walk away from CC without repercussion and allowing your entire allied forces to fire at the enemy combatants is brutal.

Wow Insectum and I agree on something again. That's another sign of the end times if you needed it.
Kan is almost suggesting that players wouldn't fall back on purpose for whatever reason for "forge the narrative" purposes.

Kan has taken some aggravating contrarian stances before but fallback is a boogeyman akin to the lasguns can kill Land Raiders hysteria is definitely a standout.

Maybe they play in a circle that has achieved the complete removal of melee that GW has been inching towards?

JakeSiren wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's just melee overwatch that costs a strategem. How often does Overwatch help things again? Specially when you are using Strategems that are far better and more worthwhile?

Well yeah, it's this "melee overwatch" that has been called out as costing a Command Point.

Unlike normal Overwatch though, this applies to every fricking model touching the unit that is falling back. And unlike normal Overwatch, it generates Mortal Wounds.
You lot have talked about having to tritip, wrap, yaddayaddayadda just to ensure that you get a unit into combat. Now you get aversion of Overwatch, generating Mortal Wounds, that is based upon being within combat range of the unit in question...and it "does nothing"? It's "not a big deal"? It's "too expensive" for a single Command Point?!

I get that melee has problems. This right here? This ain't a problem.

This "Melee overwatch" is only useful for hoard units. Elite melee units such as Thunder Calvary can expect to generate, what, 1 mortal wound? Where as if they were given an equivalent of overwatch (full attacks hitting on 6's) would cause more damage.

You are right that Melee has problems. I can't count the number of times that I've charged a full heath 8 wound Chaos Daemon Character into a gunline unit and had it obliterated due to overwatch. It puts me in a position where I can literally do nothing to hurt the enemy. That's not fun. And there is nothing I can do about it because the rest of my army has been blown off the board in the proceeding turns. And before you tell me to deep strike units, that doesn't work either. I've had 30 man blood letter units come down, get blown apart by auspex scan and overwatch, and had 3 models make it into combat! 3 models doesn't do squat and gets wiped out by the proceeding return attacks.

If "Melee overwatch" deserves to be a strategem, then so should regular overwatch. Although, to be honest, I would prefer the concept of overwatch to disappear.

Honestly Overwatch is overall fine until you're hitting on BS4+, which should be extremely rare, and if you have a bunch of rerolls.

Fallback comes up EVERY game for me. Not just for me. EVERY BA video batrep is centered around preventing fallback.

This stratagem has marginal uses, but it's laughable if this is supposed to a true cost to falling back.

On a character with 1-2 wounds left? Sure. But hey, if it dies, you can still shoot them off the table.