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.

One, not quite fully formed, thought is that you could make the decision up front in the charge phase instead.
Something like, charge declared, make a choice of: receive or withdraw.
If you receive you fire overwatch and get to fight in the fight phase normally, but cannot fall back next turn. (so your guys stand and fight and are embroiled in the melee)
If you withdraw you do not fire overwatch, get to fight with a penalty of -1 to hit, and can fall back in the next turn. (your guys grab their stuff and prepare to run, and get a few half aimed swipes in as they do so)
Might have to make some consideration for Vehicles and Monsters against infantry targets.

I considered allowing the unit to move away in the fight phase, but they'd still get caught by pile in/consolidate most of the time, and you'd almost never get away from berserkers (but then again, maybe you shouldn't get away from berserkers if you're careless enough to let them charge you!) but that left open the ease of using pile in/consolidate to engage other units without them getting a charge reaction too easily.

Really Melee just isn't deadly enough, and fall back is too rewarding. I don't think my thought here fixes it, though maybe makes it more cinematic at the very least.

Rather than melee isn't being deadly enough, it's just that you need to really dedicate your army to assaults now. More often than not, it's point inefficient to focus on melee.

There are plenty manuevers that prevent fall backs (pincer sandwich, triangle lock, coherency lock, titan bike wrap, etc), but the ultimate downfall is the 8th ed casualty removal (because the owning player get to choose which model gets removed, they can remove the specific models that are locking in the unit and preventing from falling back). In order to successfully pull off moves that prevent fall back, you either have to overtrade or pull your punches.

Melee's offensive capabilities being buffed will result in unit wipes unless you purposely pull punches, which again will leave melee units no different than how it is when they get disengaged on.

Ice_can wrote:

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.

One big problem with this, which is discussed many times in the forums. a -1 to hit is not proportionate across all armies.

a -1 on a 2+ unit is much different than a -1 on a 5+ unit. Hense the flat to hit modifier. Hell it doesn't have to be 6's, it could be 5+ instead. Having everyone reduced to the same to hit roll means that no one can complain when someone can just ignore the -1 to hit because of their base stats.

The change is to address mass firepower shooting at targets that are fallen back from. Which is mostly going to be one or two units that had to go through a gauntlet to get into melee.


Also, with a few exceptions. Most turn 1 charges are limited to about a dozen things. And most of them only applying to one unit in particular (swarmlord,Calvary slaneesh,Ork/grey knight psycher,alpha legion bezerkers) units with high movement don't usually fall into this category because it is not as reliable, and only really applies to situational maps

You must remember that deep strike is out of the picture because you can't use it turn 1.

And a second note. Screening units are actually really good at denying melee, shooting not so much

Don't make friendly fire a -1 to hit. Make it so any roll of 1 to hit is a successful hit on your own friendly unit in the combat.

With re-roll 1's to hit all over the place. This would be about as useful as the Venezuelan dollar (the petro)

Personally...

Go back to what WHFB 3rd had, the "free hack"

you can freely withdraw from combat, each enemy model gets to make a single attack, which automatically hits, with whatever weapon they are carrying - resolve the wounds and damage as usual.

result:

Elite unit withdraws from chaff, likely unharmed in any significant way, unless seriously out numbered when it should be dangerous
chaff withdraws from Elite unit, likely takes significant casualties, unless the elite unit was pretty small.

also has the advantage its quick and easy to resolve, and pretty predictable.

it also allows you to sacrifice one unit in combat to allow others to withdraw safely if you only allow the free hack when no one would be left in combat.

How about this scenario(s) for falling back:

1. Unit declare it will fall back.

2. Opponent get to do reverse-overwatch on them;
a). Either all eligible enemies attack and score a hit on a 6+, just like overwatch, or,
b). All eligible enemies scores a single auto-hit with their weapon of choice (kinda bad as no special rules are applied here, like extra damage or rending on 6's).

3. Then the falling back unit need to see if it get away;
a). Either roll 2D6 and try to beat the highest move characteristic of the engaged enemies (would feel like a reverse charge), or,
b). Compare units movements, if the fleeing unit is lower it need to beat the difference on a D6 (eg; a Marines unit (M6) try to escape from Genestealers (M8), they need to roll a 3+ to escape). No difference or a difference in the advantage of the fleeing unit mean it auto-escape.

4. If successful, regular fall back move can be done (or can use the 2D6 result for move distance from step 3).

You can add a rule that Vehicules and/or Monsters auto-pass step 3 versus Infantry if you feel it's needed too!

 Skywave wrote:
How about this scenario(s) for falling back:

1. Unit declare it will fall back.

2. Opponent get to do reverse-overwatch on them;
a). Either all eligible enemies attack and score a hit on a 6+, just like overwatch, or,
b). All eligible enemies scores a single auto-hit with their weapon of choice (kinda bad as no special rules are applied here, like extra damage or rending on 6's).

3. Then the falling back unit need to see if it get away;
a). Either roll 2D6 and try to beat the highest move characteristic of the engaged enemies (would feel like a reverse charge), or,
b). Compare units movements, if the fleeing unit is lower it need to beat the difference on a D6 (eg; a Marines unit (M6) try to escape from Genestealers (M8), they need to roll a 3+ to escape). No difference or a difference in the advantage of the fleeing unit mean it auto-escape.

4. If successful, regular fall back move can be done (or can use the 2D6 result for move distance from step 3).

You can add a rule that Vehicules and/or Monsters auto-pass step 3 versus Infantry if you feel it's needed too!

Step three is where this breaks for me.
You can try running from my riptide but its move is 12, Y'varha is 14 inches you need a base move of 9 and a 6 to even contemplate running away from it.
Knights are thr same, infantry squads would never be able to run from them, same with bikes, even if you have a jump pack when realistically jump troops could just time a jump and not be their for bikers to hit, jetbikes seem even more broken move of 16 that's bonkers broken in combination with section 3.

Well how do you think infantry could outrun a jetbike anyway?

While your troops cannot escape in some situation, it still prevent shooting to and from the unit engaged. It can be good on both side, you cannot escape from a Knight and shoot him down, but at least he himself will not shoot you and is stuck fighting your guys unless he himself want to disengage (can they fall back and shoot? Not sure about that one).

What you could do though is that if you have multiple units engaged, as long as one remain in combat the other can escape automatically (still getting hit though), so you can send help in combat to let another unit escape.

Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Except that that's the only order they get, AND they have to have moved.

So your Cadian Lascannon hits on a 5, no rerolls, instead of 4s, full reroll.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Except that that's the only order they get, AND they have to have moved.

So your Cadian Lascannon hits on a 5, no rerolls, instead of 4s, full reroll.

Laurels of command, because more cheese is the Way

Ice_can wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Didn't we have that rule last edition (Sweeping Advances), basically?

I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

After all, as is, a Guardsmen squad can't run away from an IK. The Guardsmen fall back, then get charged next turn before they do anything.

Ha bad example as guard can open fire with no ill effects due to orders.

Except that that's the only order they get, AND they have to have moved.

So your Cadian Lascannon hits on a 5, no rerolls, instead of 4s, full reroll.

Laurels of command, because more cheese is the Way

Okay. So 5s rerolling 1s, not 4s rerolling.

Notably worse. And you have to roll a 4+.

Bharring wrote:


I could imagine reverse-overwatch *or* a run-away test, but not both.

I still don't see how either of those would really improve the game. Reverse overwatch is like a spiteful kick in the rear as the enemy runs away. Killing a couple extra guardsmen before the russes open fire on you isn't likely to impact the game, but taking the time to resolve it will slow the game down a little. If falling back is to be considered a problem, then a run-away test doesn't fix the problem; it just makes the problem show up less often. In either case, you're not convincing the squad of guardsmen to stick around and get wailed on by some berzerkers, and you're not providing interesting choices to either player. Firewarriors will always try to leave combat with Death Company. The choice they're given is trying to run away and possibly failing/taking some wounds so that their friends can erase the Death Company in the shooting phase VS not trying to get away and simply being destroyed in their own fight phase without having shot up the Death Company at all.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how either of those approaches would really improve the game.

And to play daemon's advocate, the "single auto-hit" version of the reverse overwatch mechanic has the downside of strongly favoring models with a a low quantity of high quality attacks versus models with lots of low-quality attacks. A guardsman with a power fist, of all things, makes better use of such a mechanic than Leltih Hesperax or an archoflagellant. The whole "make a bunch of attacks that hit on 6's" approach does a better job of sidestepping such weirdness, although it will also result in a bunch of extra dice rolling for very little effect. Like most overwatch.

Doing anything to the unit running away is not resolving the problem.

To resolve the problem is to give a penalty to those whom want to capitalize on the fall back, namely the army.

Giving a modifier penalty doesn't effect everyone equally, so the only way is to make a flat penalty that all armies have to follow, regardless of their superior or inferior skills.

hense, the modifer of a flat to hit to units that had been fallen back from in combat.

I suggested before that this could be a 6's to hit the unit. But people were saying it was too much, well then how about 5+? or maybe even 4+? half a chance at hitting the unit is much better than the current system.

Although the 5+ is sounding like the more sensible option. Also, this could be an unmodified to hit roll, so modifiers and such could not apply.


This would solve the problem of the army wide shooting at the target. Cause the unit that fell back doesn't need anymore punishing, it really can't do much anyway.

mchammadad wrote:
Doing anything to the unit running away is not resolving the problem.

Agreed.

To resolve the problem is to give a penalty to those whom want to capitalize on the fall back, namely the army.

Giving a modifier penalty doesn't effect everyone equally, so the only way is to make a flat penalty that all armies have to follow, regardless of their superior or inferior skills.

hense, the modifer of a flat to hit to units that had been fallen back from in combat.

I suggested before that this could be a 6's to hit the unit. But people were saying it was too much, well then how about 5+? or maybe even 4+? half a chance at hitting the unit is much better than the current system.

Although the 5+ is sounding like the more sensible option. Also, this could be an unmodified to hit roll, so modifiers and such could not apply.


This would solve the problem of the army wide shooting at the target. Cause the unit that fell back doesn't need anymore punishing, it really can't do much anyway.

I'm not sure that this is quite the right solution though. You run into weird situations where units that would normally hit you on 6s due to various to -hit penalties (Alaitoc's Fieldcraft + Lightning Fast Reflexes versus guard for instance) are suddenly hitting you BETTER because a unit fell back from you. And hitting on 5s would actually mean that orks or BS4+ heavy weapons that moved before shooting would take no penalty against you. I like the general direction you're going, but I feel like a flat to-hit number might not hold up very well under scrutiny.

What about simply preventing units from shooting the disengaged unit at all unless they're within a certain distance? 6", for instance. So my sisters repentia or whatever charge a squad of guardsmen. The guardsmen fall back and thus can't shoot (without the use of orders). Normally, those repentia would be taking shots from every multilaser, lasgun, and stray heavy stubber anywhere remotely close to them, but making them untargetable except by guard units within 6" means that they're only going to be subject to a fraction of that firepower. Plus, it provides the guard player with the choice of keeping his distance or moving towards the repentia to shoot them before they charge something again.

This also creates interesting positioning choices. You don't want to clump all of your units together where they'll be charged en masse because then you'll have fewer guns available to shoot the repentia after falling back, but you also want to keep your units in position to actually shoot the repentia.

Fluff-wise, the idea is that the same chaotic tangle of melee that makes units within 1" of friendlies untargetable is still making the guard reluctant to open fire. You have to get close where you can line up your shots and be more certain of your targets to shoot at the chain-claymore-wielding warriors that your guardsmen pals are still actively trying to get away from.

Wyldhunt wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
Doing anything to the unit running away is not resolving the problem.

Agreed.

To resolve the problem is to give a penalty to those whom want to capitalize on the fall back, namely the army.

Giving a modifier penalty doesn't effect everyone equally, so the only way is to make a flat penalty that all armies have to follow, regardless of their superior or inferior skills.

hense, the modifer of a flat to hit to units that had been fallen back from in combat.

I suggested before that this could be a 6's to hit the unit. But people were saying it was too much, well then how about 5+? or maybe even 4+? half a chance at hitting the unit is much better than the current system.

Although the 5+ is sounding like the more sensible option. Also, this could be an unmodified to hit roll, so modifiers and such could not apply.


This would solve the problem of the army wide shooting at the target. Cause the unit that fell back doesn't need anymore punishing, it really can't do much anyway.

I'm not sure that this is quite the right solution though. You run into weird situations where units that would normally hit you on 6s due to various to -hit penalties (Alaitoc's Fieldcraft + Lightning Fast Reflexes versus guard for instance) are suddenly hitting you BETTER because a unit fell back from you. And hitting on 5s would actually mean that orks or BS4+ heavy weapons that moved before shooting would take no penalty against you. I like the general direction you're going, but I feel like a flat to-hit number might not hold up very well under scrutiny.

What about simply preventing units from shooting the disengaged unit at all unless they're within a certain distance? 6", for instance. So my sisters repentia or whatever charge a squad of guardsmen. The guardsmen fall back and thus can't shoot (without the use of orders). Normally, those repentia would be taking shots from every multilaser, lasgun, and stray heavy stubber anywhere remotely close to them, but making them untargetable except by guard units within 6" means that they're only going to be subject to a fraction of that firepower. Plus, it provides the guard player with the choice of keeping his distance or moving towards the repentia to shoot them before they charge something again.

This also creates interesting positioning choices. You don't want to clump all of your units together where they'll be charged en masse because then you'll have fewer guns available to shoot the repentia after falling back, but you also want to keep your units in position to actually shoot the repentia.

Fluff-wise, the idea is that the same chaotic tangle of melee that makes units within 1" of friendlies untargetable is still making the guard reluctant to open fire. You have to get close where you can line up your shots and be more certain of your targets to shoot at the chain-claymore-wielding warriors that your guardsmen pals are still actively trying to get away from.

This actually sounds brilliant. 6" Sounds like a nice rule to use. It stops people from spamming long range firepower on the unit and actually makes your opponent think twice about making his units stay close to your units. It's a high risk/reward system

That actually sounds like a good idea

I actually like that idea listed.

So I wanna recap my favorite ideas with one of my suggestions and ideas for the, well, ideas.
1. If you fall back, the opposing enemy unit gets to swing at you. You're hit on a 6+ regardless of modifiers (mostly to help protect our Power Fist dudes).
2. The unit that was fled from cannot be shot at unless you're within 9". I'm open to what this number should be. 9" seems like a number GW likes to use though.
3. If you have the Fly keyword, you suffer a -1 to shoot in addition to any other penalties you might received from moving.

How does that overall sound?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I actually like that idea listed.

So I wanna recap my favorite ideas with one of my suggestions and ideas for the, well, ideas.
1. If you fall back, the opposing enemy unit gets to swing at you. You're hit on a 6+ regardless of modifiers (mostly to help protect our Power Fist dudes).
2. The unit that was fled from cannot be shot at unless you're within 9". I'm open to what this number should be. 9" seems like a number GW likes to use though.
3. If you have the Fly keyword, you suffer a -1 to shoot in addition to any other penalties you might received from moving.

How does that overall sound?

#1 i would ditch if your using #2 cause #2 fixes the problem people would be facing.

Otherwise, these 2 things would be just fine.

Idea 2 and 3 would work just great. 1 is unnecessary as the unit in question won't need to fight the unit that fell back, cause they already had been punished enough and the unit that had been fallen back from has that protection to ensure the unit is not going to be insta gibbed off the board

mchammadad wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I actually like that idea listed.

So I wanna recap my favorite ideas with one of my suggestions and ideas for the, well, ideas.
1. If you fall back, the opposing enemy unit gets to swing at you. You're hit on a 6+ regardless of modifiers (mostly to help protect our Power Fist dudes).
2. The unit that was fled from cannot be shot at unless you're within 9". I'm open to what this number should be. 9" seems like a number GW likes to use though.
3. If you have the Fly keyword, you suffer a -1 to shoot in addition to any other penalties you might received from moving.

How does that overall sound?

#1 i would ditch if your using #2 cause #2 fixes the problem people would be facing.

Otherwise, these 2 things would be just fine.

Idea 2 and 3 would work just great. 1 is unnecessary as the unit in question won't need to fight the unit that fell back, cause they already had been punished enough and the unit that had been fallen back from has that protection to ensure the unit is not going to be insta gibbed off the board

The question is if there's really enough punishment without making Fall Back pointless. I think all 3 of those fixes would generally fix the complaints about Fall Back without favoring either player to much.

The more I play, the more I think it should just be eliminated.

The only reason it was put into in the first place was because tar pitting was a legitimate and obnoxious tactic during previous editions.

If you could have 30 cultist surround a dreadnought last edition whom only had 3 attacks, he would need 10 turns of perfect rolling to kill that squad, which was impossible.

Combined with fearless, it was the most annoying thing you could do to your opponent. Got a monster that can one shot my units? how bout i surround him in melee so he cant get away and shoot those units, Got a melee unit that is really good? i hope he likes munching on the same unit for the rest of the game

Fall back in itself was needed. But the way it has been implemented is extremely sloppy. Now, instead of actually fighting in Close combat, the unit just walks away while the army cleans up the mess.

In a lot of those situations, if you could've gotten a Dread charged by those Cultists the opponent deserved to be tarpitted.

Now it's just too easy like you were given infinite Get Out Of Jail Free cards.

mchammadad wrote:
The only reason it was put into in the first place was because tar pitting was a legitimate and obnoxious tactic during previous editions.

If you could have 30 cultist surround a dreadnought last edition whom only had 3 attacks, he would need 10 turns of perfect rolling to kill that squad, which was impossible.

Combined with fearless, it was the most annoying thing you could do to your opponent. Got a monster that can one shot my units? how bout i surround him in melee so he cant get away and shoot those units, Got a melee unit that is really good? i hope he likes munching on the same unit for the rest of the game

Fall back in itself was needed. But the way it has been implemented is extremely sloppy. Now, instead of actually fighting in Close combat, the unit just walks away while the army cleans up the mess.

I know. But this current version WASN'T needed. I'd rather play with tarpits.

Martel732 wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
The only reason it was put into in the first place was because tar pitting was a legitimate and obnoxious tactic during previous editions.

If you could have 30 cultist surround a dreadnought last edition whom only had 3 attacks, he would need 10 turns of perfect rolling to kill that squad, which was impossible.

Combined with fearless, it was the most annoying thing you could do to your opponent. Got a monster that can one shot my units? how bout i surround him in melee so he cant get away and shoot those units, Got a melee unit that is really good? i hope he likes munching on the same unit for the rest of the game

Fall back in itself was needed. But the way it has been implemented is extremely sloppy. Now, instead of actually fighting in Close combat, the unit just walks away while the army cleans up the mess.

I know. But this current version WASN'T needed. I'd rather play with tarpits.

Both suck. It's either terrible for Shooting armies or Terrible for Melee armies. Tarpits were insanely annoying and stupid to play against, but when charging for Tau is something more effective then charging for melee units something is wrong. (Deny a unit its shooting with a 5 man FW squad, pull back and unload).

It would've been good if GW decided to retool initative from simple pecking order mechanism to reaction check value instead of out right removing it.