Switch Theme:

Change to Leaving Combat  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Which is why a melee equivalent of Overwatch scales not terribly and does a good job of what we imagine would happen. It honestly isn't hard to implement.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Which is why a melee equivalent of Overwatch scales not terribly and does a good job of what we imagine would happen. It honestly isn't hard to implement.


But it is, in my opinion, not enough.

Your average Close Combat unit gets shot turn one, might get shot turn two, and has to survive overwatch to make it to close combat. A single extra round of hitting on 6s does not make up for that.

And yes, I know some units can charge turn one. That's generally too good as well.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Maybe a -2 to hit with a max of 6+?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.

My suggestion on the last page covers a lot of that - it makes when you leave combat a tactical decision, and it puts in a chance that you don't succeed - you might get caught! and the punishment for trying to run and getting caught is simply that you don't get to attack, but the enemy do.

Quoted for peoples ease:
Spoiler:

 some bloke wrote:
What if a unit can elect to move instead of attack in combat?

so, if you are charged, then the charged unit gets to fight in combat before you anyway, so no running before they swing. If you elect to move away then you sacrifice your attacks, unlike now.

so to summarise:

Flee: Instead of attacking, move D6", and if not within 1" of an enemy unit after this move then you are no longer engaged in combat. units with a movement of 10" or more move 2D6".

Piling in would still work the same, so if you start 1" away, roll a 3 and move 3", and do so before the opponents attack, their pile-in will still get them in range and you'll still be attacked - but you sacrifice attacking back to try it. so infantry have a 50:50 or less chance of escaping, bikers are much more likely to, but if you wait and weather the attacks, you will almost certainly escape as the enemy will already have piled in.

I don't recall if "end of phase pile in" is still a thing, but if it is then it would have to be removed as well.


This would bypass the whole "we get to attack but not pile in and hit on 6's" thing of melee overwatch, which would really cause issues with multiple units as, if you don't pile in, people will remove models to try and mitigate any other units attacks etc.

It is also an easy thing to work in with modifiers to make units better or worse at it - for example, meganobs could get -1 to their flee rolls because they're so slow. hormagaunts could get +1" to pile in, to make them harder to escape.

crazy off-beat idea not to be taken seriously:
if you do not fire a traktor kannon in the shooting phase, it can be used to target a meganob in the fight phase. The meganob immediately flees instead of fighting. It moves 3D6" directly towards the traktor kannon. if it passes through any units, that unit suffers D3 mortal wounds, and the meganob suffer 1 mortal wound on a D6 roll of a 1-3. If the meganob comes within 1" of the traktor kannon during this move, the traktor kannon is removed from play and the meganob stops.

I think that this would work well with the current rules without adding too much, as the chance of not escaping is covered by the pile-in move and subsequent attacks, where you have not attacked at all. It makes the decision of running before or after more key on what you're fighting - If it will kill you in one round, then run before it swings and hope you roll well. if you can weather it's attacks, then flee afterwards for a more guaranteed result.

Pre-empted response: "Bezerkers attack twice so will be impossible to escape" - can they pile-in / attack again if not engaged in combat? if not, then successfully fleeing will cut short their rampage. if they can, then yes, the scariest psychopaths in the game are a bad thing to be in combat with.

edit - additional rules for what you can/cannot do if you fled in the last combat phase will need to be applied, so people don't flee so that they can charge for bonuses. only hit on 6's in shooting and cannot charge would be a good option, which is then affected by all the "can shoot or assault normally after fleeing but not both" rules that are in place now.



The only thing I would add to help faster units more scary than slow units, would be that pile-in moves are half your movement, rounding up. no real change to infantry, except meganobs, (who should be easy to run from!) and it makes bikers and jet packs harder to run from - which makes sense!

I'm just not a fan of people walking away and their opponents not pursuing. they're not rooted to the spot, after all!

other tactics this could cause - moving the combat away from a key area, or towards. luring combat armies out of position, that sort of thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/14 09:35:00


12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 some bloke wrote:
I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.



Even with melee overwatch it's extremely unrealistic for grots to wound a land raider. Take a 30 man blob locked with a land raider, which is already unlikely because grots would have suffered casualties previously but let's assume that all of them managed to survive. A melee overwatch means and average of 5 hits, wounding on 6s before the 2+ save kicks in. 0 wounds to the land raider, maybe one with very very very lucky rolls.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Blackie wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.



Even with melee overwatch it's extremely unrealistic for grots to wound a land raider. Take a 30 man blob locked with a land raider, which is already unlikely because grots would have suffered casualties previously but let's assume that all of them managed to survive. A melee overwatch means and average of 5 hits, wounding on 6s before the 2+ save kicks in. 0 wounds to the land raider, maybe one with very very very lucky rolls.


The grots vs landraider scenario was mainly In the suggestions for mortal wounds or auto wounds if you flee badly.

That aside, I do think that units being able to flee instead of fight would be the simplest solution - don't do it in the movement phase!

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
 some bloke wrote:
I just want to point out that all the "take mortal wounds" and "take auto-wounds" and "melee overwatch" ideas don't take into account the core problem with this - the opponent is usually trying to leave combat so he can do something else, not so just to avoid the damage.

Most of the suggestions I've seen are about people just walking out of combat but taking some damage for doing so - and as people have pointed out, that becomes unrealistic in the grots vs landraider scenario.



Even with melee overwatch it's extremely unrealistic for grots to wound a land raider. Take a 30 man blob locked with a land raider, which is already unlikely because grots would have suffered casualties previously but let's assume that all of them managed to survive. A melee overwatch means and average of 5 hits, wounding on 6s before the 2+ save kicks in. 0 wounds to the land raider, maybe one with very very very lucky rolls.

It's was stated as to why MW to fall back was a bad design.

Melee overwatch works, as it also makes running away from a knight, dreadnaught more scary that running from a landraider.
And wow is the unit that runs from bezerkers.

It also means units with good saves fear it much less than glass cannons and running away from bashees is more worrying for marines than running from guardsmen.
Like it should be.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/14 11:00:08


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Ice_can wrote:


It's was stated as to why MW to fall back was a bad design.

Melee overwatch works, as it also makes running away from a knight, dreadnaught more scary that running from a landraider.
And wow is the unit that runs from bezerkers.

It also means units with good saves fear it much less than glass cannons and running away from bashees is more worrying for marines than running from guardsmen.
Like it should be.


But not aspects have yet addressed the issue that a unit might not make it out of combat. The previous proposals have been that the unit just walks away as their opponent throws some punches and stays put. do you really see bezerkers just letting their opponents walk away?

My suggestion would better imitate "realism" (in the abstract sense that it can be applied to 40k) in that either you run away and they try to catch you, or some of your guys get killed while the rest run away (in the game this is being attacked and then fleeing). not so much a heroic sacrifice as some of them not realising the rest were running. if you are lucky, or very fast, you can get away safely. but the majority of infantry would have to take a round of being hit and then disengage, as they would almost certainly be caught whilst walking away.

I don't think that "melee overwatch" represents it very well. you won't just stand still and swing whilst they walk off. but you might kill someone, then look up to find the rest of them running. if anything, "melee overwatch" should be more likely to hit, as the opponent isn't focussed on the fight, they're focussed on getting out of it!

If Melee overwatch is the way to go, I would suggest each model in CC distance before the move gets 1 autohit on the fleeing unit, rather than hitting on 6's. or just that they get a round of attacks. But my personal stance is to not have the melee overwatch, and to have failure as an option - you might try to flee, but you might not succeed.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Bah! My post was eaten!

I'd like to suggest a couple of alternatives.

1. If you Fall Back, the enemy has a chance to simply follow you. Exactly how to work this, I'm not sure. Perhaps a simple pursuit roll with -1 to the enemy roll?

2. Fall Back is declared at the start of the combat round, and limits the casualties you can inflict to enemy models within 1"/2" (salt to taste). This represents your unit working toward or staying on the edge of the combat, rather than getting properly stuck in. Trade off in killing power for the freedom to just nick off.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. And are just suggestions.

   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






Im still the biggest fan of this change:


Falling back: You can choose to fall back out of combat during your movement phase. If you do, roll 2d6. All models in the unit must move this many inch's away from the unit they are falling back from. Your opponent (if not still engaged by another unit) may then make a charge attempt immediately againgst the unit that fell back. They cannot get within 1" of any other unit that they were not previously engaged with. During the assault phase, if the enemy unit managed to suceed their charge, they act as if they had charged.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:
Ice_can wrote:


It's was stated as to why MW to fall back was a bad design.

Melee overwatch works, as it also makes running away from a knight, dreadnaught more scary that running from a landraider.
And wow is the unit that runs from bezerkers.

It also means units with good saves fear it much less than glass cannons and running away from bashees is more worrying for marines than running from guardsmen.
Like it should be.


But not aspects have yet addressed the issue that a unit might not make it out of combat. The previous proposals have been that the unit just walks away as their opponent throws some punches and stays put. do you really see bezerkers just letting their opponents walk away?

My suggestion would better imitate "realism" (in the abstract sense that it can be applied to 40k) in that either you run away and they try to catch you, or some of your guys get killed while the rest run away (in the game this is being attacked and then fleeing). not so much a heroic sacrifice as some of them not realising the rest were running. if you are lucky, or very fast, you can get away safely. but the majority of infantry would have to take a round of being hit and then disengage, as they would almost certainly be caught whilst walking away.

I don't think that "melee overwatch" represents it very well. you won't just stand still and swing whilst they walk off. but you might kill someone, then look up to find the rest of them running. if anything, "melee overwatch" should be more likely to hit, as the opponent isn't focussed on the fight, they're focussed on getting out of it!

If Melee overwatch is the way to go, I would suggest each model in CC distance before the move gets 1 autohit on the fleeing unit, rather than hitting on 6's. or just that they get a round of attacks. But my personal stance is to not have the melee overwatch, and to have failure as an option - you might try to flee, but you might not succeed.

Under that logic, units firing Overwatch should be moving back from the charging unit too.

Seriously you guys are making it over complicated.
1. They in range to hit a dude?
2. Everyone makes their attacks
3. Remove casualties and the unit makes its move.

It's simple and effective.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Chicago, Illinois

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im still the biggest fan of this change:


Falling back: You can choose to fall back out of combat during your movement phase. If you do, roll 2d6. All models in the unit must move this many inch's away from the unit they are falling back from. Your opponent (if not still engaged by another unit) may then make a charge attempt immediately againgst the unit that fell back. They cannot get within 1" of any other unit that they were not previously engaged with. During the assault phase, if the enemy unit managed to suceed their charge, they act as if they had charged.


I don't like that change as it doesn't punish the other opposing player enough. If the unit is turning tail to run then the other unit should get an attack of opportunity and have a chance to deal damage. Punishing the retreating player if they fail their dice roll. This would make some melee units far better and not be stuck in a tar pit for the rest of the game.

From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






Why should you punish them for making a smart move? That seems a bit like an overreaction. The goal isn't to punish anyone.

The goal is to make it so that both players have counter play and none feels helpless.


My method does just that. It forces the person falling back to move an unknown amount of inches in an attempt to get away, without guaranteeing they do get away. If they dont move far enough the pursuing player gets to act as though they've charged on their turn.

It gives the pursuing player a chance to avoid getting shot with their melee unit at the expense of board position, since they have to go straight into (and only into) the unit falling back.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why should you punish them for making a smart move? That seems a bit like an overreaction. The goal isn't to punish anyone.

The goal is to make it so that both players have counter play and none feels helpless.


Not at all, shooting is already too rewarding in comparison with close combat. I'm against tarpits that can last the entire game but falling back should always carry some (real) penalties. It's not a smart move if a unit that has little melee output decides to fall back, it's an auto move.

 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






It isn't an auto move with my change though. They now have to make a decision. If they try to fall back and the opponent catch's them, they now might not get to attack them at all, and any units counter charging have to deal with them also being at charge initiative.


That's not even counting the free movement its giving them into their own territory.

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why should you punish them for making a smart move? That seems a bit like an overreaction. The goal isn't to punish anyone.

The goal is to make it so that both players have counter play and none feels helpless.


My method does just that. It forces the person falling back to move an unknown amount of inches in an attempt to get away, without guaranteeing they do get away. If they dont move far enough the pursuing player gets to act as though they've charged on their turn.

It gives the pursuing player a chance to avoid getting shot with their melee unit at the expense of board position, since they have to go straight into (and only into) the unit falling back.


Here, I’d like to apply some LARP experience.

Once you’ve engaged someone, it’s incredibly risky, without distraction, to disengage. When you’re attacking, you’re literally pressing the attack. Keep pushing forward, don’t give them a chance to gather their wits. If I need to pull out? That is precisely when break the first rule, and Get Ded.

Shot to the head is good like. But a stab to the kidneys when they’re trying to turn tail is arguably better. And quicker. And a whole lot more fun.

   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

 Eihnlazer wrote:
It isn't an auto move with my change though. They now have to make a decision. If they try to fall back and the opponent catch's them, they now might not get to attack them at all, and any units counter charging have to deal with them also being at charge initiative.


That's not even counting the free movement its giving them into their own territory.


Even with the current rules if they fall back they can't attack them at all, unless they have special rules that allow that. Like fly, titanic, etc... What about being completely destroyed if they don't manage to get out of combat and the enemy unit catches them? Now it's sounds like a tactical decision.

 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






@MD Grotsnik: Normally i'd agree, but were playing a game here. We want both fair and fun without any kind of FeelsBadMan if possible.

@Blackie: Sometimes though, its actually a bonus for you to kill their unit that was otherwise just gonna be in the way. Getting stuck in combat is actually worse of a deal to the guy falling back than loosing his unit. There is no doubt that my suggestion is better than killing or damaging the falling back unit instead (at least in 8th edition).

JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




One idea had to fix fleeing from combat was
1) Psuedo Old Sweeping Advance. Each player rolls 1d6 adding there movement. If the retreating players rolls higher they get away. This will provide an interesting usage to fast moving but low attacks units in melee. And would make the movement characteristic that more relavent.

2) You need to pass a leadership check, at LD-Casulties taking in the squad that game.

I like 1 a lot more. Being remisicient of old sweeping Advance.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




40k absolutely needs a free strike mechanic like WMH has. Right now there is practically no disadvantage to leaving melee, other than the unit being unable to shoot (Oh the humanity! Now the rest of my army can shoot that unit instead).

The mortal wounds thing seems fine to me- It should be dangerous in melee and it takes effort to get there. There is a core problem in this game of certain unit's traditional roles getting stifled. Things like Carnifexes and Wraithlords where part of the tactics of using these units was to keep them in melee as they were actually safer in there than out of it (Wraithlords especially)- you cannot do this now as the unit will just move away.

OTOH I agree with the OP Tanks should be immune. This is another thing that 40k desperately needs- a Trample mechanic just like WMH has too. Tanks should just be able to run over those Cultists/Grots/whatever that are blocking them.
   
Made in nz
Regular Dakkanaut




How bout this idea, since we are seeing this in an abstract form (i.e the guardsmen squad numbering 10 people are trying to run from the massive bloodthirster while others are trying to shoot it) how bout we try and represent the hectic chaos that is close combat and shooting by implementing this rule:

Choose a target (amendment)

add the following at the end of the paragraph

"Models that target an enemy unit that was within 1" of a friendly model during the movement phase can only be hit on a roll of a 6, irrespective of the firing model's ballistic Skill or any modifiers"


This is much different than Overwatch and could be it's own thing. It makes sense that the army would try and kill that priority threat, what doesn't make sense is that there is no penalties involved to anyone else except the unit that fell back.

This would change how people address close combat, as simply running away drastically reduces the ability to apply firepower to the unit, which in turn would make people think more about close combat and the advantages and disadvantages it brings to the table.

This would do the following:

  • Close combat actually has a pseudo safety net. No more units fall back and the whole enemy army obliterates the target off the map


  • Close combat has more tactical viability as people can either build using it or try and find ways to minimize it's effect. MSU and Chaff can fall easily into this category


  • Close combat heavy armies can actually do more than what they currently can do. This means that armies don't need to build around units that stack close combat heavily and can actually diversify into the more moderate close combat units (i.e no longer need to spam bezerkers and bloodletters to actually get the unit killed, but can use other more cheaper means)



  • I would feel that this simple change would be a good compromise, as shooting can still try and kill the target, but it's not as easy as one unit falls back and the threat is gone. This also forces people to think about positioning, firing placements, units and all the different things involved with fighting against close combat.

    In a way, this would make close combat just as viable as shooting



    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/15 13:08:17


     
       
    Made in us
    Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






    Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.
       
    Made in us
    Legendary Master of the Chapter





    Chicago, Illinois

     skchsan wrote:
    Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.


    No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.

    From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
       
    Made in nz
    Regular Dakkanaut




    hense the proposal i suggested before. a compromise between close combat having a "safety net" and shooting having another chance at killing the target before they go back into CC
       
    Made in us
    Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






     Asherian Command wrote:
     skchsan wrote:
    Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.


    No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.
    That doesn't follow. Simply changing when fall back occurs need not change the mechanic of fall back itself.

    Fall back just needs to not grant free shooting against the unit it fell back from.
       
    Made in us
    Legendary Master of the Chapter





    Chicago, Illinois

     skchsan wrote:
     Asherian Command wrote:
     skchsan wrote:
    Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.


    No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.
    That doesn't follow. Simply changing when fall back occurs need not change the mechanic of fall back itself.

    Fall back just needs to not grant free shooting against the unit it fell back from.


    Fall back needs to have a chance to fail. If it doesn't then it has no draw backs.

    Because it will always punish close combat squads if a combat is broken, the protection of close combat is the squad not being targeted by range.

    From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war. 
       
    Made in us
    Never Forget Isstvan!






    Test it out my way, you will like it. It doesn't punish any player, it gives options that could cause negitives. It makes you decide whether the chance is worth it or not, and provides a way for melee units to be safe from shooting without completely shutting down a shooty army.

    JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
    http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
       
    Made in nz
    Regular Dakkanaut




     Eihnlazer wrote:
    Im still the biggest fan of this change:


    Falling back: You can choose to fall back out of combat during your movement phase. If you do, roll 2d6. All models in the unit must move this many inch's away from the unit they are falling back from. Your opponent (if not still engaged by another unit) may then make a charge attempt immediately againgst the unit that fell back. They cannot get within 1" of any other unit that they were not previously engaged with. During the assault phase, if the enemy unit managed to suceed their charge, they act as if they had charged.


    I see one huge problem with this.

    The fact that your allowing Screening units to actually be a literal screen blocker is a problem in itself.

    In a practical scenario, a shooting player would do this because of this rule.

    a) move one of his units and stretch them to the edge of coherency at one specific point behind the unit that was in CC, or within a pattern that allows a unit to be held in it while maintaining coherency

    B) fall back the unit into the other unit, blocking it from the enemy.


    Now your opponent has to roll extremely high because of this rule,

    here are some pictures of the scenario:










    And before you say "but you have to stay within 2" coherency?!? This is 2" coherency (Actually it's more 1.6" as 2" made it even easier for models to do this)

    This is what your ruling would do, this would be the norm for shooting armies, especially shooting armies that have fly or can ignore models. And since charging doesn't apply the fly rule now, even fly units have to go around.

    You ruling would destroy CC as it is, because no one could use it without getting shafted by their enemy






       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





     Asherian Command wrote:
     skchsan wrote:
     Asherian Command wrote:
     skchsan wrote:
    Just make fall back occur at the end of the shooting phase instead during movement.


    No. Thats a terrible. That allows them to recharge, giving the falling back person 0 consequences.
    That doesn't follow. Simply changing when fall back occurs need not change the mechanic of fall back itself.

    Fall back just needs to not grant free shooting against the unit it fell back from.


    Fall back needs to have a chance to fail. If it doesn't then it has no draw backs.

    Because it will always punish close combat squads if a combat is broken, the protection of close combat is the squad not being targeted by range.


    I'm with skschan on this one. skschan's suggestion would make it so that a melee unit would not be left open to an army's worth of shooting just because the enemy fell back. If the shooty player wants to deal with the melee player's melee unit, he needs to field screening units, field countercharge units, or make sure that the next unit the melee unit charges is going to die as a result of that charge so that he can shoot them up on his own turn.

    Having a chance to fail isn't really a "drawback" the way I think you're using it here. It isn't generally a careful tactical choice to run your shooty unit away from the stabby unit. Most shooty units in 40k will not trade well with most stabby units in 40k in melee. I'm not going to leave fire warriors locked in with berzerkers or incubi because they might catch me or because they'll count as charging in the fight phase. My fire warriors/marines were never going to punch that unit hard enough for staying in close combat to be a real option at all. I will absolutely attempt to have my fire warriors fall back every time because there's really no reason not to do so. If falling back is considered a problem, then a roll off to see if the fall back fails is a mechanic that only addresses the problem part of the time.

    The problem with falling back isn't that it lacks a drawback. (The drawback is, except with Flying units, that they can't generally shoot or charge afterwards). The problem with falling back is that it leaves stabby units exposed. Skschan's suggestion spares the stabby unit from being shot at without basically just insisting that the shooty unit stick around for however many turns it takes to die horribly. It also gets rid of all the extra steps some of the other proposals involve. While melee "overwatch" attacks have some parody with overwatch, overwatch itself is a problematic mechanic that slows the game down and doesn't make a difference, except when it does at which point it's a feels bad rule.

    Basically, if we're assuming that falling back is a problem, the solution is not to spend a bunch of time tossing a couple spare wounds on the fleeing unit. Those fire warriors will never be discouraged from falling back because they might lose a couple of dudes when the alternative is losing their entire squad. At that point, you're just punishing your opponent for using a feelsbad rule (falling back) by subjecting him to a spiteful feelsbad rule (wounds inflicted when the unit flees). But a mechanic that just says, "Sometimes the fallback doesn't work" probably doesn't fix the problem either because you're just making the feelsbad rule happen less often rather than getting rid of what makes the rule problematic.

    Skschan's suggestion isn't perfect (it does make it much harder for some armies to really deal with melee units other than hoping that their shooty units die when they want them to), but it's quick, simple, and spares the melee unit from being unloaded on by the waiting gunline. Plus it makes melee units that don't have a downfield delivery system more appealing. That stabby unit that isn't especially fast and lacks access to deepstrike can be responsible for countercharging those death company or ork boyz that just charged your screen.

    That said, I'm more reluctant to agree with the premise that protecting melee armies from the fall back mechanic is all that important these days. A couple deepstriking ork boy blobs that you can't fall back from and soften up with shooting is kind of a terrifying prospect.


    ATTENTION
    . Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
     
       
    Made in us
    Never Forget Isstvan!






    @mchammadad


    Theres a reason why what your saying wouldn't work reliably. That's the random distance and the fact that they have to go straight away, as far as the dice say. The falling back player has no control over how far they go, or which direction they go when falling back.

    This makes doing the blocking maneuver not really work. Not to mention, if it actually is an issue, its a very easy fix. You just add in a line to the rule stating "A player must preform all fall back moves at the start of the movement phase before regular moves".

    JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
    http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
    Go to: