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.

I feel like alot of problems with fall back and disballance shooting/assault could be fixed if fall back moves were treated as an assault move rather than a part of the movement phase.

Having to roll 2d6 and fall back that much also means that theres a small chance the opponents models might be able to 'catch' the falling back unit with their consolidation.

Thoughts?

Melee should punish gunlines, but it doesn't. If all of your army is parking within a 12" bubble, all your stuff should be tied up and unable to shoot.

Units should be allowed to pile in and consolidate after all units within 1" fell back. And they they should be allowed to fight them even though they didn't charge.

If shooty units at least had to move away from melee units and take -1 to hit on heavy weapons, things would be much better.

Consolidating any time a unit is no longer within 1" of an enemy might have an impact more in line with what you're looking for, and a smaller change to the game.

Might be true. It might completly change how armies are built.

- Playing units that operate outside of your deployment zone might be necessary.
- Bringing 60+ screening models might no longer be a no-brainer.
- A gunline probably will no longer consist of screen units, dakka units and force multipliers, but also some melee units that counter-charge your opponents melee units that reached your screen.

The game might become much more tactical, more decision must be made etc.

Of course, some units may be much to strong with these rules and some armies may be left out, but that is the case with the current rules as well.

Guys that have been talking about these changes to fall back have had a lot of backlash from the shooting people and how "This would break my army DUH"

I am all for changing fall back as it is, but good luck trying to get it past the die hard shooting guys

 davou wrote:
I feel like alot of problems with fall back and disballance shooting/assault could be fixed if fall back moves were treated as an assault move rather than a part of the movement phase.

Having to roll 2d6 and fall back that much also means that theres a small chance the opponents models might be able to 'catch' the falling back unit with their consolidation.

Thoughts?

I like the first part, but why would units falling back get to move 2d6? Why not just their normal non advance move distance? Make the fall back move the first part of the assault phase, units falling back add their actual distance moved to a d6, unit they were engaged with rolls 2d6, for every point higher the non fall back unit rolled the fall back unit takes a mortal wound.

 dracpanzer wrote:

 davou wrote:
I feel like alot of problems with fall back and disballance shooting/assault could be fixed if fall back moves were treated as an assault move rather than a part of the movement phase.

Having to roll 2d6 and fall back that much also means that theres a small chance the opponents models might be able to 'catch' the falling back unit with their consolidation.

Thoughts?

I like the first part, but why would units falling back get to move 2d6? Why not just their normal non advance move distance? Make the fall back move the first part of the assault phase, units falling back add their actual distance moved to a d6, unit they were engaged with rolls 2d6, for every point higher the non fall back unit rolled the fall back unit takes a mortal wound.

I feel like wounds are a cheap drawback for falling back. Any unit falling back would likely have taken may more wounds at the end of the phase anyway, so its a no brianer. my hope is that when you fall back there is a non-zero chance of being locked back up by the unit you ran from, moreso for units that have some kind of bonus to their pile in/consolidate moves.

Honestly the easiest rule to implement for Falling Back is to make it kinda like Overwatch for our melee friends. They swing with a 6+ to hit with their weapons. It doesn't scale that bad I don't think.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the easiest rule to implement for Falling Back is to make it kinda like Overwatch for our melee friends. They swing with a 6+ to hit with their weapons. It doesn't scale that bad I don't think.

Considering how useless overwatch is without Greater Good, why do you think Melee overwatch would make any difference?

If they made it roll a D6 for each model falling back and on a 1 they take a mortal wound, that would be fair.

I feel like this essentially just removes fall back as an option. If the unit "assaults" away from enemy units then they will have no chance to do anything. After they withdraw a max distance of 6" the turn will end. The other player will simply move 6" and charge again. The worst case scenario is a 6" charge if the retreating unit rolled a 12" retreat. Bikes and tanks could shut down entire units till the end of the game because you'll never be able to outrun them.

I'd be okay if it was some kind of roll lot roll off to leave combat, sort of like what previous editions did, or what witches do now. Then let everything be able to shoot at a -1 afterwards.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the easiest rule to implement for Falling Back is to make it kinda like Overwatch for our melee friends. They swing with a 6+ to hit with their weapons. It doesn't scale that bad I don't think.

Considering how useless overwatch is without Greater Good, why do you think Melee overwatch would make any difference?

If they made it roll a D6 for each model falling back and on a 1 they take a mortal wound, that would be fair.

I'm not for making silly fixes is the difference. Overwatch is an okay bonus but not broken, and the same here wouldn't be bad.

You also gotta remember your system of scaling is silly to the point of bad. Theoretically, 6 Guardsmen are gonna inflict a Mortal Wound to a fleeing Daemon Prince. You can make the argument "why would I do that?" but think real hard for a moment and know it shouldn't happen.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Honestly the easiest rule to implement for Falling Back is to make it kinda like Overwatch for our melee friends. They swing with a 6+ to hit with their weapons. It doesn't scale that bad I don't think.

Considering how useless overwatch is without Greater Good, why do you think Melee overwatch would make any difference?

If they made it roll a D6 for each model falling back and on a 1 they take a mortal wound, that would be fair.

I'm not for making silly fixes is the difference. Overwatch is an okay bonus but not broken, and the same here wouldn't be bad.

You also gotta remember your system of scaling is silly to the point of bad. Theoretically, 6 Guardsmen are gonna inflict a Mortal Wound to a fleeing Daemon Prince. You can make the argument "why would I do that?" but think real hard for a moment and know it shouldn't happen.

You have it backwards. You'd roll 1 dice for the Daemon Prince, not 6. It's to punish large units for falling back but let single powerful models have a not 100% safe option but pretty safe option to fall back.

Take a land raider instead of a daemon prince and your example makes more sense and is even sillier.

What about a Ld test for the unit falling back? Or a Ld roll for both: if the attacker is higher, the defender stays in combat and takes a mortal wound, if it's a draw, nothing happens, and if the defender wins, he gets to fall back normally. I think it would be interesting to bring back Ld matches, as there are tons of ways to make simple yet engaging rules for falling back or any morale-related events. Ld now is so bland and not so important for 5men or less squads .
Overwatch is alright right now

Dandelion wrote:
I feel like this essentially just removes fall back as an option. If the unit "assaults" away from enemy units then they will have no chance to do anything. After they withdraw a max distance of 6" the turn will end. The other player will simply move 6" and charge again. The worst case scenario is a 6" charge if the retreating unit rolled a 12" retreat. Bikes and tanks could shut down entire units till the end of the game because you'll never be able to outrun them.

I think that if a unit survives two turns of shooting, makes the charge and locks a unit down then it should be able to take a unit out of the game till its done with combat; as it stands you have to survive those two turns of shooting, THEN also survive the third turn shooting in rapid fire range when what they tied up just leaves.

Wasn't this discussion about moving the fallback move to the assault phase, which should save the non fall back unit that round of getting shot in the face? I like the leadership bit, anything that is quick that leaves the potential to put mortal wounds on the fall back unit so long as it is simple and puts a possible negative on the unit falling back without exposing the non fall back unit to guns in the face.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Wasn't this discussion about moving the fallback move to the assault phase, which should save the non fall back unit that round of getting shot in the face? I like the leadership bit, anything that is quick that leaves the potential to put mortal wounds on the fall back unit so long as it is simple and puts a possible negative on the unit falling back without exposing the non fall back unit to guns in the face.

right yes sorry, I replied while at work and not paying as much attention as I should have I retract

 davou wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I feel like this essentially just removes fall back as an option. If the unit "assaults" away from enemy units then they will have no chance to do anything. After they withdraw a max distance of 6" the turn will end. The other player will simply move 6" and charge again. The worst case scenario is a 6" charge if the retreating unit rolled a 12" retreat. Bikes and tanks could shut down entire units till the end of the game because you'll never be able to outrun them.

I think that if a unit survives two turns of shooting, makes the charge and locks a unit down then it should be able to take a unit out of the game till its done with combat; as it stands you have to survive those two turns of shooting, THEN also survive the third turn shooting in rapid fire range when what they tied up just leaves.

Why not just say "remove fallback" instead of this. They're functionally the same.
And removing fallback is something I disagree with btw.

Close combat armies need a reward. If you fall back. Roll 2d6. If the attacking force rolls a 2d6 and gets a higher roll then your unit is destroyed. Turning your back to a chain sword is suicide. It’s extremely easy to shoot someone in the back as well. Shooting forces need to be punished for retreating. And this gives them a reason to have more chaff or close combat units of their own

We tried sweeping advance in 3rd edition, there is a reason why it was removed.

What was that reason?

How about if you fall back. The close combat attacker gets to make an additional round of attacks.

warpedpig wrote:
How about if you fall back. The close combat attacker gets to make an additional round of attacks.

The problem is that it's not really about the damage, it's about the lack of protection to the unit that's left behind who can then be shot to pieces.


I still think that Fall Back should be D6", but the unit you're falling back from should get a D6" consolidate move unless it has another enemy within 1". If they are able to consolidate within 1" of an enemy unit then they count as having charged.

Basically what this means is that if you Fall Back with nothing to prevent the enemy consolidation then you've got a pretty low chance of actually getting way, with the enemy once again striking first if they reach you. The only advantage in this case is that you may now be closer to friendly units who can come and help. For this reason Fall Back should still be part of the Movement phase, so you can fall back, lead the enemy and then try to charge in some units of your own.

Units that currently have fall back prevention (like Wyches) would instead get to roll twice to consolidate and pick the best result. Fast units like bikes (anything above 9"?) would Fall Back and consolidate 2D6".


This would mean that the choice to Fall Back has to be made a lot more carefully, either by taking action to prevent pursuit, or falling back in a particular direction in the hopes the enemy will follow and leave itself exposed, i.e- it would be a truly tactical choice rather than the BS that it is now.