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.

So, a while back there was a thread about fixing Fall Back. It's kinda fallen by the wayside, but I'd like to revive discussion on it.

The best idea was, in my opinion, as follows:

When falling back, you take 1d3 mortal wounds per 5 models or any portion thereof in the falling back unit, to a maximum of the number of attacks in the unit they are in combat with.

For example, if a unit of 30 Conscripts fall back from 10 Assault Marines (including one Sergeant) they take 6d3 mortal wounds, to a max of 11.

Some possible additions to this include units with Fly taking minimum possible wounds, unless against a unit that can also Fly. White Scars might also take minimum wounds, since their shtick was falling back. Harlequins should, perhaps, be immune to those mortal wounds entirely.

Thoughts?

The easiest way to do it is 1d6 + m vs 1d6 + m. If the falling back unit is equal to or greater than the unit/s they are locked in combat with then nothing happens and they get away scott free. If its less than they suffer a number of mortal wounds equal to the difference.

Are terminators trying to fall back from tomb blades? Good fething luck.

Are tomb blades falling back from terminators? Good luck catching them terminators.

 Lance845 wrote:
The easiest way to do it is 1d6 + m vs 1d6 + m. If the falling back unit is equal to or greater than the unit/s they are locked in combat with then nothing happens and they get away scott free. If its less than they suffer a number of mortal wounds equal to the difference.

Are terminators trying to fall back from tomb blades? Good fething luck.

I don't like that, because of literally the example you bring up. Tomb Blades are, what, 12" move? No, checked the book-14" move.

That means that Terminators take a MINIMUM of 4 mortal wounds running away from models that can barely scratch them in CC. (Average of 9, and max of 14.) Whereas under the change I proposed, they're still taking wounds, but if it's a minimum 3-man squad of Blades, they take 1-3 mortal wounds.

I wouldn't mind tying it to move somehow, but a straight roll-off like that is just bad.

Just make all fall back follow the Wyches rules.

To quote my post on the matter:

Fall Back
Units starting the Movement phase within 1" of an enemy unit can either remain stationary or attempt to Fall Back. If you choose to attempt to Fall Back, the unit must end its move more than 1" away from all enemy units. If a unit Falls Back, it cannot Advance or charge later that turn. A unit that Falls Back also cannot shoot later that turn unless it can FLY.

Roll a D6 whenever a unit attempts to falls back. Add 1 to the roll if the unit can FLY. Add 1 to the roll if the unit has a higher movement stat than all other units within 1". Add 4 to the roll if the unit falling back is a VEHICLE or MONSTER. On a 4+ the unit falls back successfully. If the roll is failed, the unit does not fall back. A roll of 1 always fails. In addition, VEHICLES and MONSTERS may move though enemy non-VEHICLE models and non-MONSTER models when making their fall back move as if they were not there.

Alternatively:
Roll a D6 whenever a unit attempts to falls back and consult the following table.
Dark Eldar Wyches special rule would instead cause units trying to fall back to roll 2D6 and discard the highest.

While it makes sense from an earthly perspective, what does adding extra rolls do to streamline the game and speed up play?

 Infantryman wrote:
While it makes sense from an earthly perspective, what does adding extra rolls do to streamline the game and speed up play?

Nothing? But that's not the goal here. The goal is to make Falling Back less of a no brainer, or at least add SOME element of tactics to it.

hmm.... this sounds solid

Still i like my Skarbrands fall back mechanic now (no longer auto no fallback, but rather 3D6 against ur highest LD, you roll over you dont get to fall back

How about that the unit you fell back from gets to consolidate? This would risk that unit getting reengaged to either the unit that fell back or to other friendly units nearby.

Maybe a consolidate of d6" to make falling back more gamble. And the consolidating unit could even count as charging that turn.

Gitdakka wrote:
How about that the unit you fell back from gets to consolidate? This would risk that unit getting reengaged to either the unit that fell back or to other friendly units nearby.

Maybe a consolidate of d6" to make falling back more gamble. And the consolidating unit could even count as charging that turn.

unfortunately..... this wont work for anything with a movement of more than 6...... which is a lot of units at the moment (Calvary are between 8 and 16, bikes are bout the same. Monsters are min 8", vehicles are between 11" - 15")

Would only works against infantry, but even then some infantry have some pretty good movement (Looking at you guys eldar/daemonettes)

At that point, fall back would feel more of a must have for fast armies than a suggestion

When an enemy unit declares a fall back, your unit(s) in that CC may immediately fight as if it were the fight phase on the unit falling back. Resolve, falling back unit moves.

I don't mind the mechanic mentioned by Lance845, except for the Mortal wounds aspect. If those were automatic normal wounds instead - so you could take armor/invulnerable saves - that would be more reasonable.