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.

Adding non-combat wounding system feels redundant as the new morale phase does just that.

Lessening the punishment on the units left behind is going to be a better fix than punishing those who are leaving combat. The new fall back works really well of rank anx fire AM. Theres something really tactical about it imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

It would force them to include a few units with FLY for screening, or to spend CPs.

It really wouldnt be a big change from now.

The unit that fell back would be able to overwatch again if the unit decides to chase them down. It only removes the potential suicide element to the charged units.

Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.

p5freak wrote:

 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.

A hormagaunt could snap g-man's neck, if it got a lucky grip on it. You get that, right?

So would you just then let Fly units and Ultramarines get the exception of doing it as regular for now at least? If so that would work with me

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.

I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.

 JimOnMars wrote:

A hormagaunt could snap g-man's neck, if it got a lucky grip on it. You get that, right?

To G-man a hormagaunt is what a mosquito is to us. An annoying insect.

Could make it a leadership test where the retreating unit rolls 1d6 and the attacking unit gets

1d6+ number of models retreating - leadership(of retreating unit) normal attacks.

A squad of 5 marines would probably get by unscathed, but a large unit of unorganized conscripts could experience significant attrition falling back.

Maybe instead of d6 mortal wounds, just let the other unit attack at WS6+. That way it is exactly like overwatch in reverse. They would get to use all of their attacks, however.

p5freak wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

A hormagaunt could snap g-man's neck, if it got a lucky grip on it. You get that, right?

To G-man a hormagaunt is what a mosquito is to us. An annoying insect.

Mosquitos and other insignifcant insects kill people all the time during real wars.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.

I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.

I've previously thought it could work during charge phase, but I think it happening at the end of shooting phase gives more purpose to <infantry> <fly> units.

 skchsan wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.

I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.

I've previously thought it could work during charge phase, but I think it happening at the end of shooting phase gives more purpose to <infantry> <fly> units.

Same thing?

Don't forget to add the option to run away when charged....

 JimOnMars wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Changing retreat to happening in the end of the shooting phase is probably the most elegant change suggested. It still leaves melee units weakened compared to earlier editions (fighting once per game turn as opposed to two), but at least a shooting-heavy army can't just back out and delete you with little consequence.

I could agree with that, but let's put it in the charge phase to be symmetrical. Charge in, or charge out, based on where you are.

I've previously thought it could work during charge phase, but I think it happening at the end of shooting phase gives more purpose to <infantry> <fly> units.

Same thing?

As suggested, units with FLY keyword may fall back at any time during your own shooting phase - this means that certain units (i.e. units with FLY keyword or any other special rules) can fall back out of the way for your other units to shoot at the enemy units left behind.

If the unit doesnt have these certain special conditions, they can only fall back at the end of shooting phase.

If fall back were to occur at the charge phase (post shooting phase), there would be no benefit for these specialist units.

Furthermore, fall back in charge phase may potentially interact with how overwatch happens - this in itself is going to open up a HUGE can of worms.

Thinking on this I wonder if the following would not be a way to fix fall back.

A unit may attempt to fall back in the movement phase, This move is 1D6". This distance is modified by the difference in movement values between it and the unit engaging it.

IF a unit falls back all units engaged with it get to make a 3" consolidation move.

So for instance if a unit of Boyz (M 5) were engaged with a unit of conscripts (M 6), the Conscripts would get a 1D6 + 1" move to break away, the boyz would then consolidate 3". If the conscripts did not get far enough away they would still be engaged. This means that if the boyz were base to base the Conscripts would need to roll at least a 4+ to get away (5" move), if they were not base to base then the conscripts could get away on a 3+.

This would make fast units very effective at disengaging/staying engaged and slower units much less so.

For instance if the boyz above had charged a Rhino with M 12, the Rhino would roll D6 + 7" for its move and automatically get away. However, the Boyz could potentially consolidate into another unit.

Whenever a unit or a single model falls back roll a number of D6 for each enemy models within 1". For each result of 6 the unit suffer a mortal wound counted for the next morale phase. Only model that have a specific fled back move (like flyers) could shoot during their next shooting phase, if they do so they will suffer -1 to hit rolls.

This is a GREAT reason why they should have kept the Initiative (I) stat!

Roll a D6

If it is greater than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit falls back.

If it is equal to the I of the opposing unit, then the unit remains in combat.

If it is less than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit suffers a round of close combat without striking back for this turn. (I was tempted to say it is destroyed but it might be a little harsh)

Initiative modifiers would be very handy here, and there's nothing more annoying than seeing an Eversor Assassin having to strike second against a Guardsman Platoon Commander with a Power Fist, just because he charged...

Slayer6 wrote:
This is a GREAT reason why they should have kept the Initiative (I) stat!

Roll a D6

If it is greater than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit falls back.

If it is equal to the I of the opposing unit, then the unit remains in combat.

If it is less than the I of the opposing unit, then the unit suffers a round of close combat without striking back for this turn. (I was tempted to say it is destroyed but it might be a little harsh)

Initiative modifiers would be very handy here, and there's nothing more annoying than seeing an Eversor Assassin having to strike second against a Guardsman Platoon Commander with a Power Fist, just because he charged...

ONLY if initiative isn't applied like it was in the past. Why would a guardsman be able to calmly saunter away from a maniacal, enrage ork army, just because some book says he has faster than the ork? There is no way, on Mork's green earth, that orks would have I2.

 JimOnMars wrote:


ONLY if initiative isn't applied like it was in the past. Why would a guardsman be able to calmly saunter away from a maniacal, enrage ork army, just because some book says he has faster than the ork? There is no way, on Mork's green earth, that orks would have I2.

No, they would not, that's for sure... At least on par with IG... Maybe if we use the following examples and base Initiative on the perceived agility for each unit:

Initiative - Example Units
1 - Ratlings, Gretchin, Scarab Swarms, Tau Drones
2 - Imperial Guard Conscripts, Ork Shoota Boyz, Chaos Cultists, Tau
3 - Imperial Guardsmen, Ork Slugga Boyz, Necron Warriors, Terminators
4 - Space Marines, Eldar Guardians, Hormagaunts
5 - Genestealers, Death Cult Assassins, Howling Banshees, Striking Scorpions, Khorne Berserkers
6 - Imperial Assassins, Harlequins, Solitaire, Lictor, Celestine
7 - Various insane close combat heroes - Lelith Hesperax, Swarmlord

There can be several Initiative modifiers too...

Just make it a 4+ to escape and Wyches give that roll a -2.

I personally like the following:

During your movement phase you can choose to have a unit "fall back" from combat if they were within 1" of any enemy models. You and your opponent roll a D6, adding +1 for every unit you have engaged in said combat. If you beat your opponent you have successfully fallen back and your unit may move (not advance) towards your closest deployment edge but may not pass through any enemy models. This unit may not cast psychic powers targeting your opponents models, shoot, or charge for the rest of the turn.

Every unit that falls back suffers -1 leadership for the rest of the battle (as their morale is weakened). This penalty stacks up to half of their starting leadership value if they continue to fall back over the course of the battle.




Note this means its easier to fall back if you have more units engaged in combat (which makes sense) and also means that if you position in a bad way only 1 or 2 units might be able to get out but probably not all of them. The leadership penalty cannot be more than half their leadership so a unit with 5 base will only go down to 3.

The problems I have with units retreating from combat willy nilly is the unit that charged them is now left out in the open to get dakka'd to death and the retreating unit often does so risk free.

I propose something like any unit that starts the turn in CC receives a +1 bonus to saves (or imposes a -1 to hit on enemy units) until the end of the current turn (so no falling back and imposing these penalties on the non-falling back army). Mitigates the standing out in the open a bit but doesn't completely remove the enemies ability to deal with that unit. Also could help against those crazy abilities like soul-burst when I delete your unit and then get shot to pieces or noise marines shooting everything out of phase.

I also like the idea of CC overwatch for units without fly or some other special keyword (UMs and anyone else who gets some special fall back rule) Round of CC for all engaged models, only hitting on 6s.

I feel these changes would address the two biggest problems I have with units fall back from CC without breaking the system.

bananathug wrote:
The problems I have with units retreating from combat willy nilly is the unit that charged them is now left out in the open to get dakka'd to death and the retreating unit often does so risk free.

I propose something like any unit that starts the turn in CC receives a +1 bonus to saves (or imposes a -1 to hit on enemy units) until the end of the current turn (so no falling back and imposing these penalties on the non-falling back army). Mitigates the standing out in the open a bit but doesn't completely remove the enemies ability to deal with that unit. Also could help against those crazy abilities like soul-burst when I delete your unit and then get shot to pieces or noise marines shooting everything out of phase.

I also like the idea of CC overwatch for units without fly or some other special keyword (UMs and anyone else who gets some special fall back rule) Round of CC for all engaged models, only hitting on 6s.

I feel these changes would address the two biggest problems I have with units fall back from CC without breaking the system.

This is why I think the Initiative test (and stat) would be useful. A unit with a low Initiative would have a lower chance of escaping a higher Initiative unit and will remain in the combat, but if they fail their Initiative test, they will not be able to attack in that turn's CC round whilst the enemy can...

Allow to pursue/overrun the retreating units by charging them again after they move out of combat, if your overrunning unit is left out in the open (out of base contact with any enemy units).
The charge is still random 2D6 so the units have a chance to escape.

 combatcotton wrote:
"When you select one of your units to fight in the fight phase you may have it retreat instead of rolling for its attacks."

All the game needs on top of this is a small mention that retreats of units during the last player's fight phase count as having moved when firing during their next shooting phase.

This actually would make shooting armies WAY stronger. Because vehicles can now just retreat on their opponent's turn, and fire on that players next shooting phase, or move. It would be a dramatic nerf to CC armies.

The better solution would be to have it be an unmodified leadership check taken on 2D6 to fall back. Leadership 9+ models would be disciplined and fall back appropriately. So necron warriors, genestealers, would have little trouble with this. Meanwhile, conscripts, or hormagaunts, wouldn't really be super smart when it comes to falling back. And there's always a chance for "insane heroism" when you don't want it. It would also give you a really strong reason to bring a commissar.

I have gone through this whol forum post and the same things have been suggested time and again

I will say this right now. It is not the unit that falled back that is the problem, it's the fact that falling back opens up the attacking units to a HUGE shooting counterattack

Considering the fact that the only penalty shooting armies suffer is that the one or two units that were charged cant shoot (unless you have fly, are IG, are SM, or have something that allows you to walk on by and then lay down some -1 to hit firepower) you are completely screwed as the charging character if you didn't wipe out the unit the turn before. Not to mention you have to go through the gauntlet of OVERWATCH all over again (Might i stress now that in order to attack something during the fight phase after charging you have to DECLARE a CHARGE at them. Even if you pile into them you cant atk them if you didnt declare a charge, and everyone whom you declared a charge for can do what now? MULTIPLE FRIGGIN OVERWATCHES)

So ill just say this. Make it that you can only fall back during your Close combat phase, unless the person has super fast things that still count as charging first then you cant really suffer much when you can react first, this means that you'll lose some people (Cause of the you only activate one unit ) but at this point this is damage control for the success of the enemy getting to you.

Tactical moves that the opponent do that are pretty hight risk (Multi charging, Piling into multi units after a good round of CC) Should be encouraged and rewarded

During the CC phase, allow the active player to have units in CC fall back "before" that player moves on to declaring charges. No freebie shooting at the enemy unit, no freebie kills on the unit falling back.

I too would like falling back to have some kind of downside, so that I might one day hear the sentence "These guys will use their pistols in close combat.".

I like the d3mw per 10 guys on fleeing option. It shouldn't be a horrible penalty, but enough to make you consider not running and sending in reinforcements instead.

I agree with the people who've suggested that you can only fall back in the fight phase.

With this idea, falling back still works 100% of the time, and in fact it should be penalty free with this change. This way melee units are still protected from being shot to hell, falling back is actually a tactical choice instead of a free option, and it gives the assaulters a chance to respond. The current falling back mechanic is too powerful, plain and simple.

Another option is:

Units within 1" of enemy models may choose to "fall back" during their movement phase. If they do so they must move their full move characteristic away from the enemy models they were engaged with. They can no longer choose to shoot or assault for the remainder of the turn. Any allied units now receive a -2 to hit the enemy unit they were engaged with in the following shooting phase as they do not want to hit their retreating allies. This penalty does not stack for retreating multiple units, but does stack with any other penalties to hit.



This is a small addition to the rules and does not cause much confusion. You can still choose to fall back and shoot with everything, only with a -2 to hit.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Another option is:

Units within 1" of enemy models may choose to "fall back" during their movement phase. If they do so they must move their full move characteristic away from the enemy models they were engaged with. They can no longer choose to shoot or assault for the remainder of the turn. Any allied units now receive a -2 to hit the enemy unit they were engaged with in the following shooting phase as they do not want to hit their retreating allies. This penalty does not stack for retreating multiple units, but does stack with any other penalties to hit.



This is a small addition to the rules and does not cause much confusion. You can still choose to fall back and shoot with everything, only with a -2 to hit.

This, too, could work. The main problem is the fact that the assaulting unit gets left completely naked, not that the retreating unit suffers no penalty.