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.

2D6 Ld test, modified by models lost this turn, other buffs/negatives etc. Failure means that many dead/lost wounds if character/vehicle.

Reason? Feels very easy for chaff troops to dance back and forth. Elites fine, but regular guard?

Edit:-

Following the interesting discussion change the idea to (rationale in post on page 2)...

Falling back as is scrapped and changed to:-

End of turn.

Player decides whether or not the unit wishes to fall back and makes morale test as normal for unit that has lost men in close combat. If it fails the unit loses that many men and remains in combat and if it opted to fall back, cannot. If it passes and opted to fall back it takes a number of mortal wounds equal to the dice roll and may now take one normal move away from the enemy unit it is in combat with. The enemy unit may then consolidate as normal.

Single model units, or units that use stratagems to pass their morale check, must still make a morale check if they wish to fall back. If they fail they lose that many models, unless they have auto passed using a stratagem, and if they pass/use a stratagem to auto pass take the number of mortal wounds shown on the dice.

Next turn all units act as normal.

I'm of the belief a 2d6 LD should be taken.

I believe if it fails killing models, taking wounds is too much as risk vs rewards drops too much. However maybe that many saves, no modifiers to save roll.

I say there should be a D6 roll off and add LD. If those attempting to flee lose, nothing happens. If they win, they successfully fall back but they take Overwatch equivalent hits from those they are fleeing from, with those attacks hitting on a natural 6 of course.

Remove 3 pointing to compensate. As it is preventing fall back is very easy and with 30-40" charges in game it has got to point you need melee threat or you have untargetable unit rampaging if you don't go first and have indirect fire weapons to kill it in one go

I would also add:

1. Units that fall back must end their move closer to their deployment zone.

There are far too many units with FLY that fall back forward then use 'act normally even if fell back' stratagem. Intended? Maybe. But I find such maneuvers quite game-y.

 skchsan wrote:
I would also add:

1. Units that fall back must end their move closer to their deployment zone.

There are far too many units with FLY that fall back forward then use 'act normally even if fell back' stratagem. Intended? Maybe. But I find such maneuvers quite game-y.

That's actually a REALLY good idea. I'm also for a BS modifier to Fly units trying to shoot.

It's kind of equally dumb for a unit to be forced to stand and die or to not be able to shoot at a unit because there's a grot engaging them. Ultimately its a problem with the binary nature of melee, which has always demanded some reworking, IMO.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I would also add:

1. Units that fall back must end their move closer to their deployment zone.

There are far too many units with FLY that fall back forward then use 'act normally even if fell back' stratagem. Intended? Maybe. But I find such maneuvers quite game-y.

That's actually a REALLY good idea. I'm also for a BS modifier to Fly units trying to shoot.

I'd apply snapshot mechanic and allow shooting on unmodified 6's only.

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I would also add:

1. Units that fall back must end their move closer to their deployment zone.

There are far too many units with FLY that fall back forward then use 'act normally even if fell back' stratagem. Intended? Maybe. But I find such maneuvers quite game-y.

That's actually a REALLY good idea. I'm also for a BS modifier to Fly units trying to shoot.

I'd apply snapshot mechanic and allow shooting on unmodified 6's only.

I'd rather try a -1 modifier and see how people feel on that. Otherwise you kinda ruin the point of units that were meant to have that sorta benefit, like Scourges or Inceptors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or that those units get a rule to mitigate that, but that's MORE rules writing.

To me the best thing would be if you fall back the opponent gets a similar ability to overwatch just melee attacks that hit on 6 and those rare few 5.

My idea.

If a unit wishes to fall back from close combat it must make an opposed leadership check (1d6+Ld+Modifiers) against a unit it is engaged with. If the unit wishing to fall back wins its roll then it may fall back as normal. If the unit wishing to fall back fails it's roll it takes a number of mortal wounds equal to the difference between the opposed rolls. If a unit is engaged with more than one other unit your opponent must choose the unit they will use for the roll.

This adds some risk for falling back, but also means that it's unlikely for a chaff unit to prevent a more elite unit from disengaging.

Cool, 3D6 roll before you even attempt a charge with units then.

It's only fair after all!

Yeah it should defently be an opposed roll off to see if the unit falling back actually manage to escape the clutches of combat.

In 8th its soooo easy to just fall back with 1 unit that cannot shoot, "OH NOES A SINGLE UNIT CANNOT SHOOT, well thank god we got double tapping lemanrusses or tripletides on the bord to secure the removal."

I'm a broken record, but...

* Not a fan of rules that only let unts fallback sometimes. If falling back is broken, then making the broken thing happen only some of the time means you're still using a broken rule some of the time.

* Not a fan of "reverse overwatch." Overwatch itself tends to be a lot of rolling for not much effect and slows down the game. This would have the same problems. Plus, the problem with falling back isn't that the fleeing unit gets away; it's that the rest of their army turns around and blasts your melee unit off of the table. Reverse overwatch doesn't address that.

* Given that the problem with falling back is that the units fallen back *from* get shot at by the rest of the fleeing unit's army, I like the following:

"During your shooting phase, you may not target an enemy unit that began the turn within 1" of a friendly unit with an attack unless the shooting unit is within 9" of that unit. "

The effect?
* Melee units don't get shot at by an entire gunline on the following turn.

* The things that do shoot your melee unit will be within easy charge range for said melee unit if it survives.

* Counter-charge units and short-ranged dakka units like breachers, guardians, etc. have more of a role.

Wyldhunt wrote:
* Not a fan of rules that only let unts fallback sometimes. If falling back is broken, then making the broken thing happen only some of the time means you're still using a broken rule some of the time.

Falling back isn't broken, it's just boring and often there's very little grey area where it's unclear if a unit should fall back or stand and fight.

* Not a fan of "reverse overwatch." Overwatch itself tends to be a lot of rolling for not much effect and slows down the game. This would have the same problems. Plus, the problem with falling back isn't that the fleeing unit gets away; it's that the rest of their army turns around and blasts your melee unit off of the table. Reverse overwatch doesn't address that.

Agreed!

* Given that the problem with falling back is that the units fallen back *from* get shot at by the rest of the fleeing unit's army, I like the following:

"During your shooting phase, you may not target an enemy unit that began the turn within 1" of a friendly unit with an attack unless the shooting unit is within 9" of that unit. "

Is that actually the issue though? If you're good you'll tripoint something and falling back is a nonissue anyway and conversely a melee unit that's far up the table unsupported should get torn to shreds once the shooting army gets it out of combat. We do not want to go back to the Meleehammer40k of days gone by where units could fight through a unit in a turn and consolidate into the unit behind it also locking it down; rinse repeat.

The real issue is that falling back shouldn't be risk free and mindless and that you shouldn't have to (or even be able to) tripoint a model to keep your models from being shot at.

My proposal would be,
1- let the unit fall back as currently.
2- enemy units disengaged can immediately do a 2d6 consolidation move unless the unit falling back pulls off an organized retreat.

Organized retreat. The unit that wants to retreat has to take a ld check same as with moral (with same modifiers that apply from casualities). If the unit passes the moral check, it can retreat as normal and any pursuing unit can consolidate only 1d6 instead of 2d6.

Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

I still think the best way to deal with fall back is to have it occur at the end of shooting phase with the caveat it must end its fall back move closer to its own deployment zone/board edge.

It resolves the issue to HAVING TO tripoint lock and giving voluntary element to the previous editions' morale's issue.

 skchsan wrote:
Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

That's actually the point, isn't? A tactical move badly performed should grant the opponent an advantage.

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

That's actually the point, isn't? A tactical move badly performed should grant the opponent an advantage.

So when units fail charges, does an entire army get to shoot them up?

After all, it was a tactical move badly performed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

That's actually the point, isn't? A tactical move badly performed should grant the opponent an advantage.

So when units fail charges, does an entire army get to shoot them up?

After all, it was a tactical move badly performed.

Well, yes, that does tend to happen when you fail a charge.

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

That's actually the point, isn't? A tactical move badly performed should grant the opponent an advantage.

Fall back is anything but a tactical move. I doubt it was designed to let cheap fodder units become retreating phalanx or as a pseudo-sweeping advance. It's primary function was most likely to remove the effect of cheap fodder units tarpitting units that it couldn't damage anyways. In the past, you could tie up vehicles for the entire game which made for not-so-fun experience (though some may argue if you let your vehicle get tarpitted in the first place, you deserve it). Ironically, what was probably designed to lessen the effect of massed fodder actually ended up empowering them even more.

Simplest fix is to get rid of it.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

That's actually the point, isn't? A tactical move badly performed should grant the opponent an advantage.

So when units fail charges, does an entire army get to shoot them up?

After all, it was a tactical move badly performed.

Well, yes, that does tend to happen when you fail a charge.

Twice, actually, because you take overwatch regardless of if you make a charge or not, and then you get shot in your opponent's shooting phase.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

* Given that the problem with falling back is that the units fallen back *from* get shot at by the rest of the fleeing unit's army, I like the following:

"During your shooting phase, you may not target an enemy unit that began the turn within 1" of a friendly unit with an attack unless the shooting unit is within 9" of that unit. "

Is that actually the issue though? If you're good you'll tripoint something and falling back is a nonissue anyway and conversely a melee unit that's far up the table unsupported should get torn to shreds once the shooting army gets it out of combat. We do not want to go back to the Meleehammer40k of days gone by where units could fight through a unit in a turn and consolidate into the unit behind it also locking it down; rinse repeat.

The real issue is that falling back shouldn't be risk free and mindless and that you shouldn't have to (or even be able to) tripoint a model to keep your models from being shot at.

Personally, I'm not sure I agree that falling back should come with an element of "risk." Even if the cost of falling back (such as mortal wounds in your suggestion) was a known quantity, falling back would still generally be a straightforward calculation. Let's say I know I'm going to take about X wounds from falling back. If my opponent's unit is going to do more than X wounds to me in melee OR if I need to ensure that my opponent's unit dies before it can do more killing in melee, I'll still fall back. If my opponent's unit can be beaten/locked down/traded with efficiently in combat, then I won't fall back and probably wouldn't have regardless of the fallback cost.

Basically, adding a damage price to falling back will only impact decision making a small portion of the time.

By making a unit you fall back from untargetable at a distance, however, you change the decisions the falling back player has to make and even encourage a change in which units are included in their list. Countercharge units and short-ranged units that can mop up models from within 9" become important. And if only units within 9" can target the enemy unit, maybe you're better off leaving your squad engaged to do what little damage they can after all.

As for tripointing, I agree it shouldn't be a necessary thing. It really feels like an unintended thing that GW didn't really think about. Also, I'd argue that there are tons of times when you can't really ensure your opponent gets tripointed. Between short charge rolls, casualty removal, and morale casualties, your opponent will have a lot of say in whether or not you can actually tripoint a unit.

I like where your head's at though!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

I still think the best way to deal with fall back is to have it occur at the end of shooting phase with the caveat it must end its fall back move closer to its own deployment zone/board edge.

I'm not against moving falling back to the end of the shooting phase. It encourages counter-charge units and fixes the whole, 'melee units get wiped out by gunlines after their target falls back," thing. As has been discussed in other threads, it might be a good idea to let flying units fall back in the movement phase (unless we want to offer major price reductions to Fly units to reflect the significant nerf this would represent).

The "deployment zone/board edge" caveat has some weirdness to it. If you use deployment zone, you'd have to explain how to handle weirder deployment situations such as when player A has two disconnected corners as deployment zones (per the Open War deck). It would also mean that you'd be able to fall back in any direction if you're currently in your deployment zone. Using the "player's board edge" would mean you'd have to reintroduce/explain that concept. We dinosaurs are very used to the idea, but the concept doesn't actually exist in 8th edition. And then how does that interact with, for instance, the Open War deployment where one player sets up their entire army in the middle of the table (their deployment zone doesn't touch a board edge).

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm not against moving falling back to the end of the shooting phase. It encourages counter-charge units and fixes the whole, 'melee units get wiped out by gunlines after their target falls back," thing. As has been discussed in other threads, it might be a good idea to let flying units fall back in the movement phase (unless we want to offer major price reductions to Fly units to reflect the significant nerf this would represent).

The "deployment zone/board edge" caveat has some weirdness to it. If you use deployment zone, you'd have to explain how to handle weirder deployment situations such as when player A has two disconnected corners as deployment zones (per the Open War deck). It would also mean that you'd be able to fall back in any direction if you're currently in your deployment zone. Using the "player's board edge" would mean you'd have to reintroduce/explain that concept. We dinosaurs are very used to the idea, but the concept doesn't actually exist in 8th edition. And then how does that interact with, for instance, the Open War deployment where one player sets up their entire army in the middle of the table (their deployment zone doesn't touch a board edge).

That's a good point you bring up. The idea is that fall back shouldn't enable units to take up a more strategic placement akin to the old 'hit and run' mechanics, unless of course, it has a special rule that enables them to. Back to the drawing board, that idea goes.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Orkimedez_Atalaya wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Fall back shouldn't be risk free, but it shouldn't grant the opponent advantage when it fails.

That's actually the point, isn't? A tactical move badly performed should grant the opponent an advantage.

So when units fail charges, does an entire army get to shoot them up?

After all, it was a tactical move badly performed.

Well, yes, that does tend to happen when you fail a charge.

If you fail a charge, then the unit currently just takes whatever damage they would have gotten from Overwatch and it ends until the opposing player's turn starts...which means that they might not be taken out the next turn.

The idea that was proposed is that "fall back lets disengaged units immediately make a 2d6 consolidation move unless the unit falling back pulls off an organized retreat", requiring a LD check (with Morale from casualties because...reasons, I guess?) and if the unit passes the check then the pursuing unit "only" gets 1d6 of movement instead of 2d6...which is ridiculously punishing and if a similar mechanic was being suggested for shooting units we'd have the people posting this kind of nonsense crying their eyes out about shooting units doing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

I'm not against moving falling back to the end of the shooting phase.

I am. It's an absolutely terrible idea that just shifts the pendulum from shooting to melee armies.

It encourages counter-charge units

You know what also encourages counter-charge units?
An actual counter-charge mechanism!

and fixes the whole, 'melee units get wiped out by gunlines after their target falls back," thing. As has been discussed in other threads, it might be a good idea to let flying units fall back in the movement phase (unless we want to offer major price reductions to Fly units to reflect the significant nerf this would represent).

Nothing's really going to "fix" the issue, if we're going to be blunt about it.

I like the both sides took 2d6 proposal. A unit can fall back, the unit is disengaged from had an opportunity to chase them down. It can actually get startegic with pulling units away from objectives. And gives the disengaged unit a chance to stay in combat.

The proposal is 2d6" to consolidate, which means that they get to potentially get a huge benefit for literally no risk.

I guess I'm picturing both sides get 2d6 and if the unit being disengaged from is able to catch the disengager then the combat continues, just in a different spot. Or maybe only the disengaged unit gets a charge and the disengager gets its normal move.

 lifeafter wrote:
I guess I'm picturing both sides get 2d6 and if the unit being disengaged from is able to catch the disengager then the combat continues, just in a different spot. Or maybe only the disengaged unit gets a charge and the disengager gets its normal move.

Which I don't care for, personally, because it's a variation on, "the problem happens some of the time instead of all of the time."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm not against moving falling back to the end of the shooting phase. It encourages counter-charge units and fixes the whole, 'melee units get wiped out by gunlines after their target falls back," thing. As has been discussed in other threads, it might be a good idea to let flying units fall back in the movement phase (unless we want to offer major price reductions to Fly units to reflect the significant nerf this would represent).

The "deployment zone/board edge" caveat has some weirdness to it. If you use deployment zone, you'd have to explain how to handle weirder deployment situations such as when player A has two disconnected corners as deployment zones (per the Open War deck). It would also mean that you'd be able to fall back in any direction if you're currently in your deployment zone. Using the "player's board edge" would mean you'd have to reintroduce/explain that concept. We dinosaurs are very used to the idea, but the concept doesn't actually exist in 8th edition. And then how does that interact with, for instance, the Open War deployment where one player sets up their entire army in the middle of the table (their deployment zone doesn't touch a board edge).

That's a good point you bring up. The idea is that fall back shouldn't enable units to take up a more strategic placement akin to the old 'hit and run' mechanics, unless of course, it has a special rule that enables them to. Back to the drawing board, that idea goes.

Personally, I don't think it's actually all that unreasonable to fall back towards an objective.

"Fall back,brothers! We must set the charges. We cannot afford to be bogged down here!" And all that jazz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

I'm not against moving falling back to the end of the shooting phase.

I am. It's an absolutely terrible idea that just shifts the pendulum from shooting to melee armies.

Does it? Ranged units still have a lot going for them with this change (being able to shoot across the table for instance). This would just encourage players to invest in some melee or tarpit units to go with their gunline to deal with any enemy melee units that get close. It encourages a more well-rounded army, basically.

It encourages counter-charge units

You know what also encourages counter-charge units?
An actual counter-charge mechanism!

I mean, feel free to go start a thread that pitches one. Unless I overlooked something, that's not currently what's being discussed.

and fixes the whole, 'melee units get wiped out by gunlines after their target falls back," thing. As has been discussed in other threads, it might be a good idea to let flying units fall back in the movement phase (unless we want to offer major price reductions to Fly units to reflect the significant nerf this would represent).

Nothing's really going to "fix" the issue, if we're going to be blunt about it.