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.

Basically no one method is perfect.

Skchsans method is not something new, it has been discussed when 8th edition first came out, it was mostly a reaction from the close combat players because of how lopsided the current ruleset is.

That saying, moving fallback to the end of the shooting phase leaves no counter play mechanics, as that CC unit can simply re-charge that unit that fell back and get themselves closer to the gunline every time they pile in and consolidate.

An overwatch style Melee is basically useless as a mechanic. Giving the unit that is going to be wiped out by the rest of the army the small opportunity to kill the squad they couldn't kill in the round is a kick in the balls, and is frankly just picking at straws.

The main issue that melee faces is the fact they cannot get the safety net they have been given for 4 editions, which ironically enough is the tarpit fight.

A good system would compromise between both extremes. On the one hand, you don't want fall back to be a useless gimmick as it covers something that most people agree had to be implemented in the game to stop tarpitting.

On the other hand, you can't have the current ruleset as it gives melee oriented armies no chance of standing on even ground with shooting oriented armies. In it's current state, there is no counterplay mechanic for the melee army.


Hense the suggestion i made a few post ago.

Giving units that were engaged in melee in the movement phase a reverse "hard to hit" mechanic is most likely the best compromise you could give to melee armies. It rewards CC oriented armies that succeed in getting into CC a "safety net". this being in the form of only being able to hit them on a 6, while giving the enemy army an opportunity to do some counter play (i.e you can still shoot the unit). I will admit it's not perfect, mechanics like these usually get people to take units that can get static to hits, but this would ensure that both sides at least can say the game treats them fairly as mechanics based armies.

mchammadad wrote:
That saying, moving fallback to the end of the shooting phase leaves no counter play mechanics, as that CC unit can simply re-charge that unit that fell back and get themselves closer to the gunline every time they pile in and consolidate.

Fall back happens during your turn, so the unit that was disengaged from will only be able to re-charge the same unit in the subsequent turn.

Currently, counter play to a charge is fall back, and the counter play to fall back is that the unit left behind is open to fire to kingdom come. In other words, theres no counter play to a fall back - this is what needs to be addressed, not just a penalty system for a fall back.

The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

Bharring wrote:
The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

I get where you're coming from, and that tends to work out against balanced armies. It's the gunline armies and armies with efficient screens that really create the problem. If my charging unit managed to kill a squad of marines or tie up a leman russ for a turn, I can feel okay about the work that melee unit has done. But when all I did was kill ~50 points of guardsmen and then lose twice or thrice that to the firepower of the unit(s) they were screening.

Now, if my army happens to be pretty balanced, I might be able to clear out those screens before utilizing my delivery system (be it transports, psychic powers, or deepstrike) so that the unit I charge is more worthwhile. If I'm playing an army that strongly favors melee (most daemon armies, vanilla ork armies without an eye towards dakka, etc.), then there's a much better chance that screens will keep me from doing efficient damage.

I guess my point is that the penalty of not being able to shoot after falling back frequently doesn't come up when you're facing lists that happen to have the most tools for shooting up your units after the screen dies or falls back. And that's where the most frustrating fall back related moments come from. If my incubi bounce off of someone's tactical marines and they proceed to fall back so that their devastator buddies can shoot me, that stinks for me, but it doesn't sting as much as when I charge some fire warriors or guardsmen, barely do any damage to their army as a whole, and then get blasted away because that's what their army is good at.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

I get where you're coming from, and that tends to work out against balanced armies. It's the gunline armies and armies with efficient screens that really create the problem. If my charging unit managed to kill a squad of marines or tie up a leman russ for a turn, I can feel okay about the work that melee unit has done. But when all I did was kill ~50 points of guardsmen and then lose twice or thrice that to the firepower of the unit(s) they were screening.

Now, if my army happens to be pretty balanced, I might be able to clear out those screens before utilizing my delivery system (be it transports, psychic powers, or deepstrike) so that the unit I charge is more worthwhile. If I'm playing an army that strongly favors melee (most daemon armies, vanilla ork armies without an eye towards dakka, etc.), then there's a much better chance that screens will keep me from doing efficient damage.

I guess my point is that the penalty of not being able to shoot after falling back frequently doesn't come up when you're facing lists that happen to have the most tools for shooting up your units after the screen dies or falls back. And that's where the most frustrating fall back related moments come from. If my incubi bounce off of someone's tactical marines and they proceed to fall back so that their devastator buddies can shoot me, that stinks for me, but it doesn't sting as much as when I charge some fire warriors or guardsmen, barely do any damage to their army as a whole, and then get blasted away because that's what their army is good at.

Well said. This is the problem CC has faced since 8th edition. The fact that the unit doing the melee combat doesnt always go to plan and ends up dying because a unit half or a quarter of it's points cost walks away from the equivalent of murphy's law and then proceeds to get obliterated without doing anything.

Hell, it could just be the unit not even getting into combat. That's basically a complete waste of points, you might as well play with half the points of your opponents army if your a melee focused army vs a shooting army

Name one shooting unit that suffers the same problem? Ill give you a hint, none of them. Because you can apply damage to the target before they even get close, and frankly the only armies that shooting armies find a problem is....... more shooting armies.

The chance that charge fails is far more common of a combat mechanic, a unit disengaging with 0 chance for punishment is hilariously stupid. It needlesly punishes all close combat units in the game. The tarpit strategies were created to remove shooting threats and deal with overly shooting armies. without it shooting armies are super dominant which means close combat armies and units like khorne and blood angels are punished horribly.

A simple fix would be to allow for more movement when charging or to reward the player charging apart from 'going first'. Bring back +1 attack on charge for infantry and biker units and the game will drastically change.

Or give a reverse overwatch for melee units except they hit at a higher rate than they normally do on retreating units and have an advancing move / sweeping advance. Except it would be for certain units like jump pack and heavy infantry. Some units would be excluded like Cataprachts, Wraithguard, dreadnoughts, and other 'massive' units. But Tartars and Howling banshees could sweeping advance.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Bharring wrote:
The counter play to Fall Back is that the unit, outside special rules, can do nothing that round, and is almost always an easy Charge for whatever it Fell Back *from*.

It's things that *weren't* engaged in CC, things that *didn't* fall back, that are typically shooting you off the table. So the complaint is that charging unit A into unit B doesn't protect unit A from being shot by unit C. Which is certainly debateable.

Now, there is a valid complaint that there are too many "get out of Fall Back free-ish" things in the game. Anything with Fly. Stratagems. UM and WS tactics. And so forth. That's a valid complaint.

Further, Overwatch each round is kinda silly. With rules aiming to prevent "show up & charge" or "Turn 1 charges", Overwatch has been redundant since it was introduced. It's acceptable enough the first time you charge something, but when that soemthing falls back, it gets to Overwatch again when you press CC again? That's silly.

It takes one Assault Marine to make it into CC to shut down anything without a special rule. Fall Back doesn't save it. That's not "free".

I get where you're coming from, and that tends to work out against balanced armies. It's the gunline armies and armies with efficient screens that really create the problem. If my charging unit managed to kill a squad of marines or tie up a leman russ for a turn, I can feel okay about the work that melee unit has done. But when all I did was kill ~50 points of guardsmen and then lose twice or thrice that to the firepower of the unit(s) they were screening.

Now, if my army happens to be pretty balanced, I might be able to clear out those screens before utilizing my delivery system (be it transports, psychic powers, or deepstrike) so that the unit I charge is more worthwhile. If I'm playing an army that strongly favors melee (most daemon armies, vanilla ork armies without an eye towards dakka, etc.), then there's a much better chance that screens will keep me from doing efficient damage.

I guess my point is that the penalty of not being able to shoot after falling back frequently doesn't come up when you're facing lists that happen to have the most tools for shooting up your units after the screen dies or falls back. And that's where the most frustrating fall back related moments come from. If my incubi bounce off of someone's tactical marines and they proceed to fall back so that their devastator buddies can shoot me, that stinks for me, but it doesn't sting as much as when I charge some fire warriors or guardsmen, barely do any damage to their army as a whole, and then get blasted away because that's what their army is good at.

What your describing is less of a CC mechanics issue and more an issue of a number of units being pointed to a completely different scale compaired to other units.
It's also not really helped by GW undervaluing just how valuable being able to create a wall of guardsmen or a no deepstrike footprint is. They also didn't seem to have taken into consideration the wieght of numbers as a levelling factor for invulnerable saves etc

Here's a food for thought - the necessity of fall back mechanism is primarilly to stop tarpitting, an action where you take a unit that can't effectively CC down the target and charge against it in order for the target to be stopped from doing anything fpr the remainder of the game. Prime example is a cultist blob of 20 against a dreadnought with base attack of 2, where it's mathematically impossible for the dread to kill the blob within 5 turns, all the while the little guys can't take down a single HP off the dread. CC wasn't an issue where a dedicated CC unit more than capable of wiping the floor with its target.

Now, where has fall back taken us? It empowers those units with large number of low costing multi model units more than ever, while crippling a unit's capacity to deal out damage over course of multiple turns.

I like the suggestions that it be easier to escape a unit such as a tank or a dreadnaught than a jump marine or a banshee. This is a perfect instance where Initiative values would come in, where a model with a high initiative is better at escaping / catching than a model with a low initiative. It would have been as simple as a D6+I, if the guys running roll higher they get away, if the other guys roll higher they inflict mortal wounds equal to the difference.

I think there are 3 aspects to this, which is:

1: if you turn your back it's likely to get stabbed.
2: if your enemy doesn't want you to go, they will give chase.
3: Then we have to address the fact that the unit you ran away from can be shot to bits by the enemy. I think that this can be solved by having a way to catch the fleeing unit - and so remain in combat, and prevent yourself being shot at.

so, having determined that point 2 will probably help balance point 3, we are left with 1 and 2: you have to have a chance of being punished/hurt for fleeing, and you shouldn't have a 100% success rate at disengaging.

Then we have to add that faster units are better at chasing/fleeing than slow ones.

so, we need to:

A: incorporate movement speed into the flee/chase scenario.
B: give the unit a chance to give chase
C: give the unit a chance to inflict damage as their opponents flee.

I think that the amount of damage a unit will take as it disengages, realistically, would be related to the units level of training. so leadership is probably the best statistic to test against. D6 + the maximum attacks statistic of an enemy model within 1". So if you're trying to escape a bezerker or a bloodthirster, it's more likely to get one or two of you than if you're walking away from an angry grot. if you're engaged in combat with 10 grots and a warboss, you use the warboss' attacks characteristic.

Once the test is done, move away as normal (you can advance whilst you do). The enemy models may then declare a charge on the unit which fled. if the unit advanced they may not fire overwatch (or shoot/charge at all this turn). If they don't advance, they can shoot but at -1 to hit (-2 for heavy weapons). a unit that flees may not charge.

so, I think this addresses the points: If you want to disengage, it's scarier against a unit/model with lots of attacks than a unit with 1 each. you have a chance to be killed as you go. You could be charged straight away, if you are too slow to escape. If you don't want to be shot, then charge them as they flee - but if you don't roll well enough, you'll be out in the open. Bikes / jump infantry are better at disengaging.

The only point not addressed is that fast units should be better at chasing the enemy down. But I don't see this as too much of an issue, as I don't want bikes & speedy units to be the kings of all combat.

I also think that perhaps we need the unit being fled from to have the option to move normally instead of charging. so perhaps have them allowed a 2D6" move, and if they engage the enemy then hooray for them. But I don't know.


I think the best Idea I have in here is the D6+highest attacks of an enemy in combat vs leadership when disengaging. makes CC monsters scary to run from.

In all of the above, I think that vehicles should be exempt. They are lumbering behemoths of steel, they aren't suited to quick responses. But they should also have the old ramming rules for pushing infantry aside.

 some bloke wrote:
I like the suggestions that it be easier to escape a unit such as a tank or a dreadnaught than a jump marine or a banshee. This is a perfect instance where Initiative values would come in, where a model with a high initiative is better at escaping / catching than a model with a low initiative. It would have been as simple as a D6+I, if the guys running roll higher they get away, if the other guys roll higher they inflict mortal wounds equal to the difference.

I think there are 3 aspects to this, which is:

1: if you turn your back it's likely to get stabbed.
2: if your enemy doesn't want you to go, they will give chase.
3: Then we have to address the fact that the unit you ran away from can be shot to bits by the enemy. I think that this can be solved by having a way to catch the fleeing unit - and so remain in combat, and prevent yourself being shot at.

so, having determined that point 2 will probably help balance point 3, we are left with 1 and 2: you have to have a chance of being punished/hurt for fleeing, and you shouldn't have a 100% success rate at disengaging.

Then we have to add that faster units are better at chasing/fleeing than slow ones.

so, we need to:

A: incorporate movement speed into the flee/chase scenario.
B: give the unit a chance to give chase
C: give the unit a chance to inflict damage as their opponents flee.

I think that the amount of damage a unit will take as it disengages, realistically, would be related to the units level of training. so leadership is probably the best statistic to test against. D6 + the maximum attacks statistic of an enemy model within 1". So if you're trying to escape a bezerker or a bloodthirster, it's more likely to get one or two of you than if you're walking away from an angry grot. if you're engaged in combat with 10 grots and a warboss, you use the warboss' attacks characteristic.

Once the test is done, move away as normal (you can advance whilst you do). The enemy models may then declare a charge on the unit which fled. if the unit advanced they may not fire overwatch (or shoot/charge at all this turn). If they don't advance, they can shoot but at -1 to hit (-2 for heavy weapons). a unit that flees may not charge.

so, I think this addresses the points: If you want to disengage, it's scarier against a unit/model with lots of attacks than a unit with 1 each. you have a chance to be killed as you go. You could be charged straight away, if you are too slow to escape. If you don't want to be shot, then charge them as they flee - but if you don't roll well enough, you'll be out in the open. Bikes / jump infantry are better at disengaging.

The only point not addressed is that fast units should be better at chasing the enemy down. But I don't see this as too much of an issue, as I don't want bikes & speedy units to be the kings of all combat.

I also think that perhaps we need the unit being fled from to have the option to move normally instead of charging. so perhaps have them allowed a 2D6" move, and if they engage the enemy then hooray for them. But I don't know.


I think the best Idea I have in here is the D6+highest attacks of an enemy in combat vs leadership when disengaging. makes CC monsters scary to run from.

In all of the above, I think that vehicles should be exempt. They are lumbering behemoths of steel, they aren't suited to quick responses. But they should also have the old ramming rules for pushing infantry aside.

This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

 skchsan wrote:
This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

Units which are fast are hard to catch. This method rewards models with high attacks by making them more likely to kill some models as they flee. It also rewards fast units by making them better at hit & run techniques - they are no better at catching fleeing models (it would be too complex to put in!).

So the models who are unrewarded are the slow units with a low number of attacks - can you point out which of these are dedicated assault units?

You want to be fast to get away from attackers. you want high attacks to punish people for trying to run. You want high leadership to get all your guys out unscathed. it all makes sense, at least to me.

 some bloke wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

Units which are fast are hard to catch. This method rewards models with high attacks by making them more likely to kill some models as they flee. It also rewards fast units by making them better at hit & run techniques - they are no better at catching fleeing models (it would be too complex to put in!).

So the models who are unrewarded are the slow units with a low number of attacks - can you point out which of these are dedicated assault units?

You want to be fast to get away from attackers. you want high attacks to punish people for trying to run. You want high leadership to get all your guys out unscathed. it all makes sense, at least to me.

Every unit that is not an aeldari, have M of 6" or less but comes with CC weapons as primary. The list is too long to list.

 skchsan wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
This method disproportionally rewards units with high M. Not all dedicated CC units are fast,

It will turn fast armies as prime CC army, regardless of how good they actually are in CC.

Units which are fast are hard to catch. This method rewards models with high attacks by making them more likely to kill some models as they flee. It also rewards fast units by making them better at hit & run techniques - they are no better at catching fleeing models (it would be too complex to put in!).

So the models who are unrewarded are the slow units with a low number of attacks - can you point out which of these are dedicated assault units?

You want to be fast to get away from attackers. you want high attacks to punish people for trying to run. You want high leadership to get all your guys out unscathed. it all makes sense, at least to me.

Every unit that is not an aeldari, have M of 6" or less but comes with CC weapons as primary. The list is too long to list.

ok, I see what you're saying that an average "trooper" for most armies is not going to have any real advantage in either fleeing or pursuing - but surely that is a good thing?

Let's go through some basic scenarios:

Unit A is the pursuer, Unit B is the Flee-er.

scenario 1: both units are "troopers" with 1 attack and a 6" move.
unit B moves away, and has to roll 1D6+1, compare to leadership and see if anyone dies. likely no-one dies.
Unit A has a 6" charge to make to get them back in range. They will be more likely than not to achieve this. Unit B can overwatch.
If Unit B chose to advance, then unit A needs a 6+D6" charge to catch them up - a much less likely prospect. But, unit B can't overwatch, or shoot next turn.

so how fast you run determines how successful you are to escape. makes sense.

Scenario 2: Unit A is a trooper, Unit B is fast
naturally, the fast unit is much more likely to get away. because it is fast. makes sense.

Scenario 3: Unit A is Fast, Unit B is a trooper.
As per scenario 1, as the pursuer gets no benefit from being fast. so if you really run from the enemy, they are less likely to catch you. makes sense, but not so much when bikes are not quicker to catch you than troops.

Scenario 4: Unit A is a CC monster with 6 attacks each, unit B is a trooper.
unit B is likely to take casualties disengaging. if unit B doesn't run fast enough, he will be caught. Makes sense.

Scenario 5: Unit A is a CC monster, Unit B is a fast unit.
Unit B is likely to take casualties as he disengages. Unit A is not likely to catch him once he does.

so we can conclude that:
you will take casualties if you disengage from units with high attacks
you will probably get caught if you don't advance when disengaging, unless you are already fast
if a unit with average leadership disengages from a unit with low attacks, it can usually do so safely.

I don't see this causing people to run all fast units for CC purposes unless they are good at CC as well. You still have to fight, after all!

Plaguebearers literally only have CC as a way of hurting enemy units.

5" move.

 skchsan wrote:
Here's a food for thought - the necessity of fall back mechanism is primarilly to stop tarpitting, an action where you take a unit that can't effectively CC down the target and charge against it in order for the target to be stopped from doing anything fpr the remainder of the game. Prime example is a cultist blob of 20 against a dreadnought with base attack of 2, where it's mathematically impossible for the dread to kill the blob within 5 turns, all the while the little guys can't take down a single HP off the dread. CC wasn't an issue where a dedicated CC unit more than capable of wiping the floor with its target.

Now, where has fall back taken us? It empowers those units with large number of low costing multi model units more than ever, while crippling a unit's capacity to deal out damage over course of multiple turns.

1. If the Cultists really managed to get that close, they deserve to tarpit.
2. Dreads have had 4 attacks since either 6th or 7th, when GW realized only 2-3 attacks is complete and utter garbage.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plaguebearers literally only have CC as a way of hurting enemy units.

5" move.

how many attacks do they have?

their low movement is only a problem if they want to get out of combat in my system. chasing after people is a charge roll, and as such is unaffected by their movement characteristic.

People escaping will have to roll D6 + the highest attacks characteristic of the enemy models engaged in combat (IE who could swing without piling in), which would be the unit champion. if they only have 1 attack each, then I have to speculate that they are not particularly good as dedicated CC units.

Bear in mind that the current system allows people to walk away from your plaguebearers with no penalty, and you don't get to attack again unless you survive being shot, then survive the overwatch, then make the charge roll again, in your next turn. In my system, you might catch them again in their turn, avoid being shot at, and get to attack in their turn but having charged. IE running away badly and getting caught for your troubles ends worse for you than just standing and fighting. Makes sense.

so in my suggestion, your plague bearers are more likely to stay in combat and killing things than in the current system.

Note: to get units safely out of CC you will have to put other units into CC to tie them up and keep them from pursuing. units fleeing might still take casualties, but they won't be chased.

I am considering that the D6 + attacks will need a +2 modifier to it, as it's a little feeble at the moment unless there's a real CC monster on the field.

 some bloke wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plaguebearers literally only have CC as a way of hurting enemy units.

5" move.

how many attacks do they have?

their low movement is only a problem if they want to get out of combat in my system. chasing after people is a charge roll, and as such is unaffected by their movement characteristic.

People escaping will have to roll D6 + the highest attacks characteristic of the enemy models engaged in combat (IE who could swing without piling in), which would be the unit champion. if they only have 1 attack each, then I have to speculate that they are not particularly good as dedicated CC units.

Bear in mind that the current system allows people to walk away from your plaguebearers with no penalty, and you don't get to attack again unless you survive being shot, then survive the overwatch, then make the charge roll again, in your next turn. In my system, you might catch them again in their turn, avoid being shot at, and get to attack in their turn but having charged. IE running away badly and getting caught for your troubles ends worse for you than just standing and fighting. Makes sense.

so in my suggestion, your plague bearers are more likely to stay in combat and killing things than in the current system.

Note: to get units safely out of CC you will have to put other units into CC to tie them up and keep them from pursuing. units fleeing might still take casualties, but they won't be chased.

I am considering that the D6 + attacks will need a +2 modifier to it, as it's a little feeble at the moment unless there's a real CC monster on the field.

I'm sure many of us here agree wih you conceptually, that fast units should be obviously be faster than slow units. But within the given rulesets we have, M characteristic is a hard stat to utilize for balanced rule implementation.

This would mean that any forms of bike with 12"+ movement will always be able to tarpit themselves into slower units (unless youre eldar with 7" M base). No smart player will ever fall back against someone with +6" move against them - which results, again, in tarpitting. In order for your proposal to work in a balanced manner, we need to revisit the M characteristic and its value, and potentially adjust M across the entire game. It would be fine if we were rewriting the rulebook, but this is impossible to implement in the current ruleset.

Fall back system is good - we just need to remove the associated penalty aginst the unit being disengaged from.

 skchsan wrote:
Here's a food for thought - the necessity of fall back mechanism is primarilly to stop tarpitting, an action where you take a unit that can't effectively CC down the target and charge against it in order for the target to be stopped from doing anything fpr the remainder of the game. Prime example is a cultist blob of 20 against a dreadnought with base attack of 2, where it's mathematically impossible for the dread to kill the blob within 5 turns, all the while the little guys can't take down a single HP off the dread. CC wasn't an issue where a dedicated CC unit more than capable of wiping the floor with its target.

Now, where has fall back taken us? It empowers those units with large number of low costing multi model units more than ever, while crippling a unit's capacity to deal out damage over course of multiple turns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Fall back system is good - we just need to remove the associated penalty aginst the unit being disengaged from.

These. People have suggested lots of neat ways to inflict wounds on units as they fall back or to sometimes not allow a unit to fall back, but neither of those results really addresses the actual problem with falling back.

If falling back is a problem and you implement a solution that only stops falling back some of the time, then you're still allowing the problem to persist; just less consistently.

If a shooty unit is engaged with a stabby unit, then they generally have no reason to stay in that location. Unless the shooty unit is durable enough to tarpit the melee unit through my opponent's turn, I will attempt to fall back with it regardless of the damage it sustains 100% of the time. At that point, any extra wounds are just the cost of doing damage.

If we identify the core issue we want to fix as, "Falling back leaves melee units exposed to shooting with no real counterplay," then the solution should be to either not leave them exposed to shooting or to introduce some sort of counterplay. Rolling dice to see if they don't fall back in the first place isn't really counterplay, and neither is rolling a bunch of dice to kill a couple extra fleeing models.

How about falling back is movement minus 1d6. You can move this regardless of whether you make it out of combat. The fight phase happens as per normal if any models still within 1" except the ones falling back forfeit their attack.

Would work nicely alongside allowing shooting into combat where all misses count as hits to your own units in the combat.

If you can prevent a unit from falling back, that is the counterplay to being left exposed.

Whilst I agree that disengaging from a unit for free and then freely shooting at it with the rest of your army is too powerful at the moment, by simply making it not a given that you'll walk away, you largely eliminate that tactic.

In my proposal, you have to try and get away - you might get hurt if you're leaving a powerful unit, and you might then be charged again. It makes it difficult for an "average" (M6 Ld7) to get away from combat without a decent advance roll.

Yes, I think that if you engage a slow unit wit ha fast unit, it is a viable tactic to break out of combat and high-tail it out of there whilst the artillery shells come whistling down. being able to flee combat and leave the enemy exposed should be a part of the game - but you should have to be lucky or using the right units to do so reliably. an average unit should have a reasonable chance of catching an average unit. it should be difficult to catch a fast unit, and it should be hard to escape unscathed from a unit with lots of attacks.


In short: There should be a counterplay to falling back and shooting everything at he stranded unit, but it shouldn't be something gifted for free, that works every time.

My one compliant about including movement stats into any fall back mechanics is that it leads yo some horrific power creep for quick units, fly keyword and will see standard infantry basically become redundant after having provided as much cheap CP as they can. You already have units in the game that can pull of 24 inch or more charges reliable. Simply put the tables arn't big enough to enable the game to play the way you are describing.

Ice_can wrote:
My one compliant about including movement stats into any fall back mechanics is that it leads yo some horrific power creep for quick units, fly keyword and will see standard infantry basically become redundant after having provided as much cheap CP as they can. You already have units in the game that can pull of 24 inch or more charges reliable. Simply put the tables arn't big enough to enable the game to play the way you are describing.

I do agree that this will render fast units as difficult to tie up in combat. and again, I do think that it's reasonable. The main army which can't easily escape combat is the guard - who have enough units on the field to accept the casualties, and if the unit leaving advances, they still get 6+D6" of movement to get away - which is fairly reliable. But fast units should be difficult to catch.

If I'm honest, the biggest issue is the sheer distance foot units can cover nowadays, and biker units with 14" move and 12" charge is ridiculous. I would prefer to rewrite charges to reduce distance, then instigate my suggestion for chasing units which try to leave combat. it makes it harder to get into combat, but much more rewarding once you do, as they can't just walk away again.

I'd want charges to be related to movement speed. perhaps a simple cap on charge distance. It used to work having a 6" charge, for everything, back in the day. Maybe just have a "(C)harge" statistic, with the models charge move on it, and have D6+C for charge distances. This way firewarriors would have C1 and would be decidedly "meh" at charging, and bezerkers would be much better with, say, C4. But this is a discussion for another thread, which I'll probably go and start now.

I still think the best counterplay for units walking away and leaving you open to being shot at is to have a chance to stop them from doing so. Stop "I'll just be over here, watching you get shot" from having a 100% success rate. You tried to leave combat, you failed to leave combat, change your turn plan.

 some bloke wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
My one compliant about including movement stats into any fall back mechanics is that it leads yo some horrific power creep for quick units, fly keyword and will see standard infantry basically become redundant after having provided as much cheap CP as they can. You already have units in the game that can pull of 24 inch or more charges reliable. Simply put the tables arn't big enough to enable the game to play the way you are describing.

I do agree that this will render fast units as difficult to tie up in combat. and again, I do think that it's reasonable. The main army which can't easily escape combat is the guard - who have enough units on the field to accept the casualties, and if the unit leaving advances, they still get 6+D6" of movement to get away - which is fairly reliable. But fast units should be difficult to catch.

If I'm honest, the biggest issue is the sheer distance foot units can cover nowadays, and biker units with 14" move and 12" charge is ridiculous. I would prefer to rewrite charges to reduce distance, then instigate my suggestion for chasing units which try to leave combat. it makes it harder to get into combat, but much more rewarding once you do, as they can't just walk away again.

I'd want charges to be related to movement speed. perhaps a simple cap on charge distance. It used to work having a 6" charge, for everything, back in the day. Maybe just have a "(C)harge" statistic, with the models charge move on it, and have D6+C for charge distances. This way firewarriors would have C1 and would be decidedly "meh" at charging, and bezerkers would be much better with, say, C4. But this is a discussion for another thread, which I'll probably go and start now.

I still think the best counterplay for units walking away and leaving you open to being shot at is to have a chance to stop them from doing so. Stop "I'll just be over here, watching you get shot" from having a 100% success rate. You tried to leave combat, you failed to leave combat, change your turn plan.

I'm not opppsed to say jetpack/jumppacks or teleporting units being hard to catch in CC but really a bike doesn't do a 180 degree turn easily and if your doing that you definitely arn't fighting back.

Ok that's an Idea, what about instead of punishing running away the unit in combat has to forgo it's CC attacks in the preceding Fight phase to be able to fallback?

I know it still doesn't help CC units from getting blased if they are hang out to dry but really short of rescaling 40k removing fallback as a mechanic just makes any unit with turn 1 charges King off all and makes screening even more mandatory and will reduce list variations even more.

I have to agree that bikers making a quick exit is not really that realistic, but then again they also shouldn't stop as soon as they make contact - realistically, if a bike hits a unit it should go straight through and inflict some hits. A space marine on a motorbike should be a lot less effective when mired in combat than one on foot - it should be easier to hit, and nowhere near as good at dishing out attacks. and lets not even go into how easily one could put a plasma pistol to the head of a marine jammed into the sidecar of an attack bike... not all the mechanics will reflect "reality" as well as others. A biker unit can go from full speed in one direction to full speed in the other in the space of a single turn - they can charge in any direction. They also go from moving 14" + 6" advance + 12" charge (ork bikers near a warboss rolling very well) + 3" pile in, for a total of 35" of movement (!!) to a standstill without any impact on the unit they stopped in front of. The game simplifies these things so that everything flows smoothly. So yes, in theory a unit on bikes won't make as quick a getaway as a unit which can run really fast or fly, but would still be quicker than a unit on foot (as you could easily barge your way out on a bike). But to keep everything flowing smoothly, I think to A: allow models to move away as fast as they move, and B:make more co-ordinated squads (higher leadership) less likely to take casualties by doing so is the best way to cover this.

I like the idea that you either fight or flee, not both, and I also like the idea that you should be able to chase a unit if it does flee.

I also also like the idea that this would open up for more rules in the future as armies are re-released, like chaos taking human shields if the enemy flees instead of pursuing, or guard being able to "hit the deck" to allow a unit to be shot, but be auto-hit in CC with no attacks back (so better hope you kill them!). That sort of thing.

I intensely dislike the idea that a unit should still be able to walk away from combat, even with a parting volley of CC hits, and the unit left behind just stands there to be shot to bits. I also dislike the idea that the unit left behind gets a bonus like -1 to be hit "just to be fair".

If nothing else comes of this, I want there to be a chance that the unit doesn't get away. that's my biggest thing.

How about every unit left disengaged from fall back immedietly gets to consolidate? This could tie up new units and start a chain reaction of fall backs

Gitdakka wrote:
How about every unit left disengaged from fall back immedietly gets to consolidate? This could tie up new units and start a chain reaction of fall backs

This is potentially good implementation, but I think it can be exploited by few armies with easy access to 'still act normal after falling back'.

Under your porposal, it would make the player think twice before falling back, and if it's potentially more detrimental to do so, they would choose to remain in combat - at which time, come the opposing player's turn, will simply 'fall back' forward towards the enemy units and bring forth the exact scenario you are trying to achieve when fall back occurs.

P.S. - GW should rename 'fall back' to "disengage", as you're not limited to literally falling back towards the rear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
...but really a bike doesn't do a 180 degree turn easily and if your doing that you definitely arn't fighting back.

Batman would beg to differ.

Basically you have 3 options:

a) make a mechanic that can deny fall back (basically a roll to see if you can fall back)

b) an extra move after a fall back (this is a semi pile in for the melee unit after someone falls back)

c) penalties for other units (this in the form of a reverse over watch, so to hit the unit that was disengaged from requires unmodified 6's)


These 3 would be the main ways of dealing with the problem that CC has with fall back.

The first one sounds nice, until you realise that what wyches do is this mechanic, and it's ok in a sense but for other units with "stay here" mechanics (fiends of slaneesh,Skarbrand ect.) this would make them that more valuable.

The second move either falls into M+D6 vs 2D6, either of which is either too unreliable (a M15 unit would always run from anything) or too unpredictable (2D6 is a nightmare for everyone cause there is no reliability), this could work but would need to be extra careful in how it would be implemented.

Ironically enough, the third option is the fairest and probably the most logical one out of all of them. We know that the unit that disengaged is not the problem, rather it is the army of firepower behind that unit that is the problem. Tarpitting last edition either went with large squads denying a single unit the chance to do anything, or a single unit biding their time in CC to not be shot at. This one would be the compromise, as it still has fall back mechanic in it's current state as a way to address tarpitting, while at the same time addresses the shooting problem by making the target significantly harder to do damage to, mind you it is not impossible, but it does mean they have a shield in the form of being harder to hit

mchammadad wrote:
Basically you have 3 options:

a) make a mechanic that can deny fall back (basically a roll to see if you can fall back)

b) an extra move after a fall back (this is a semi pile in for the melee unit after someone falls back)

c) penalties for other units (this in the form of a reverse over watch, so to hit the unit that was disengaged from requires unmodified 6's)


These 3 would be the main ways of dealing with the problem that CC has with fall back.

The first one sounds nice, until you realise that what wyches do is this mechanic, and it's ok in a sense but for other units with "stay here" mechanics (fiends of slaneesh,Skarbrand ect.) this would make them that more valuable.

The second move either falls into M+D6 vs 2D6, either of which is either too unreliable (a M15 unit would always run from anything) or too unpredictable (2D6 is a nightmare for everyone cause there is no reliability), this could work but would need to be extra careful in how it would be implemented.

Ironically enough, the third option is the fairest and probably the most logical one out of all of them. We know that the unit that disengaged is not the problem, rather it is the army of firepower behind that unit that is the problem. Tarpitting last edition either went with large squads denying a single unit the chance to do anything, or a single unit biding their time in CC to not be shot at. This one would be the compromise, as it still has fall back mechanic in it's current state as a way to address tarpitting, while at the same time addresses the shooting problem by making the target significantly harder to do damage to, mind you it is not impossible, but it does mean they have a shield in the form of being harder to hit

Needing 6's to hit is way too much of a bonus given the number of units that can pull off reliable turn 1 charges. It can probably be a -1 to hit modifier and that's probably at most.
Also how would you have such a rule interact with things like Ultramarines or fly or Super heavies who can all fall back and shoot.

Personally I would do the following

Friendly Fire
When shooting at a unit that was within 1 inch of a friendly unit at the begining of the preceding movement phade a -1 to hit modifier applies.

Change the Ultramines chapter tactic to if a unit with this tactic falls back it may shoot at the unit it falls back from, additionally Ultramarines units add 1 to hit rolls when shooting at a unit that was within 1 inch of a friendly Ultramines unit at the start of the preceding movement phase.

I don't like the idea that a unit which was disengaged from is really difficult to shoot at afterwards. I much prefer the idea that you can try, and fail, to disengage, or try and succeed, and that this will dictate whether or not the unit can be shot.

I agree that including a models movement in any fall back or pile in move will result in the fast units either being inescapable or uncatchable. The game will turn into who-can-bring-the-fastest-close-combat-units and as soon as you're in combat with them, you're stuck.

I think that units disengaging should be doing so with random movement, and should have a number of D6 relating to their movement speed:
0-6" : D6
7-12": 2D6
13"+: 3D6

which is a pathetic distance for most units, but if people really want to get away then they will have to advance, and then cannot shoot or charge. But, there's no reliability in being fast, so if you decide not to advance, then roll a 3 on 2D6, you made a bad decision (which should be allowed in games!)

Alternatively, they could have M-D6", or just M if they decide to advance, when disengaging. So you get a fairly reliable method for faster units, and minimise rolling for units which really want to get away. then make sure that there are very few units which can disengage and then charge. So the purpose is to get a few shots off before they crash into your lines again.

 some bloke wrote:
I don't like the idea that a unit which was disengaged from is really difficult to shoot at afterwards. I much prefer the idea that you can try, and fail, to disengage, or try and succeed, and that this will dictate whether or not the unit can be shot.

I agree that including a models movement in any fall back or pile in move will result in the fast units either being inescapable or uncatchable. The game will turn into who-can-bring-the-fastest-close-combat-units and as soon as you're in combat with them, you're stuck.

I think that units disengaging should be doing so with random movement, and should have a number of D6 relating to their movement speed:
0-6" : D6
7-12": 2D6
13"+: 3D6

which is a pathetic distance for most units, but if people really want to get away then they will have to advance, and then cannot shoot or charge. But, there's no reliability in being fast, so if you decide not to advance, then roll a 3 on 2D6, you made a bad decision (which should be allowed in games!)

Alternatively, they could have M-D6", or just M if they decide to advance, when disengaging. So you get a fairly reliable method for faster units, and minimise rolling for units which really want to get away. then make sure that there are very few units which can disengage and then charge. So the purpose is to get a few shots off before they crash into your lines again.

The -1 to hit is supposed to represent the difficulty in shooting at the enemy while not hitting your own comrades.
It's called danger close fire for a reason, but I'm not sure adding in a 1's hit your own dudes is a good mechnic as it's not really going to stop some one leveling your CC unit with a baneblade because they might hit their 4 remaining guardsmen.

The other problem with adding in a can't leave combat mechanic is how does it interact with flyers, Vehicals, Monsters.
A guardsmen isn't exactly going to slow down Magnus, riptide if they decide to leave combat.

Their is so many problems that come out of it, it was a good concept but doesn't work in 8th as the base rules make some assumptions that this mechanic would break.