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.
Historicly, when an army retreats is when it's most vulnerable, with an organized retreat difficult but not impossible while disorganized troops can turn it into a rout.
On top of this, there are a couple of issues … tripointing, to keep units pinned in (often just a single model!) to make a unit invulnerable to shooting for a turn and the overall weakness of -1LD or +1 LD for many units. Lastly is the power of the fallback, leaving units hanging in the wind while they get gunned down at no risk to the forces who fell back. As such, here's my proposed rule:
Falling Back: In the movement phase, a unit without fly may declare itself to be Falling Back. A falling back unit ignores enemy models when it moves but follows all other movement rules as normal. After its completed its move, make a Leadership test of 4+1D6 and compare it to the unit's Leadership score. If the test is equal to or less the unit's Leadership, nothing happens. For every 1 the Leadership Test exceeds the unit's Leadership, remove one model from play.
(The wording may need some work. If anyone thinks that they can clean it up, feel free!)
In essence, it's a casualty roll as if the unit had lost 4 models... I chose this number so that units with a Leadership of 10, like Necrons, can Fall Back without worry due to discipline, while lower LD units, like Guard, are riskier. Having a terror unit, like Chaos Raptors, that lowers a unit's LD can be quite damaging to a retreating unit (A Guard unit with -2 LD is going to lose a BUNCH of guys on the retreat) while the few +1 LD traits get more useful.
It makes "Well, I'll fall back with these two special weapon guys to save them" a bit more dangerous and now players might want to leave a unit in melee, where they have a chance to live, vs pulling them back and risking a rout. It removes tripointing, but at the same times makes leaving melee dangerous, to try and leave a bit of a balance in there.
I don't think it's *perfect*, but I think it gives a bit more bite.
I like it in principle, but I wonder if it could be made a little better!
Falling back from a Khorne Bezerker seems more risky than falling back from a Nurgling. As such, I would consider it better if falling back was an option to take instead of fighting in the Fight phase.
So your unit would get charged, then the chargers would attack, and then you could declare yourself "falling back", which is done instead of fighting.
The number added to the leadership roll could be as simple as "the number of casualties taken in this combat". thus fleeing from a CC monster would still take more of a toll than fleeing from a unit of 10 gretchin.
Units which fall back may not move, shoot, assault or cast psychic powers in the following turn.
I would also add "Fear" to some monstrous creatures, stating that a unit must roll a D6+"X" (X defining how terrifying the unit is), and if it exceeds their leadership, then they are forced to fall back instead of fight. Units which cause "Fear" would be immune. This would help differentiate monsters from vehicles! units which would be fearless, EG khorne bezerkers, would be fear (0), meaning roll D6 + 0, so Ld 5 or less might run away!
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
I would be inclined to agree with the 'ignore enemy models when making a fall back move' clause if fall back occurred at the end of shooting phase or beginning of charge phase.
At a mechanical level, there is nothing wrong with fully surrounding a unit in order to prevent it from falling back, but I do agree with tripointing being gimmicky & gamey as it relies on technicalities rather than explicit restrictions.
As for the Ld based operations, the issue here is that units/models with low Ld's tend to be your throwaway units anyways, so utilizing Ld as base for penalties is not going to be that fruitful IMO.
Subsequently, change all of "fall back and shoot" stratagems & abilities into "models affected by this stratagem/ability may fall back during movement phase instead of [enter proposed non-shooting phase here] as normal." Units with FLY keyword innately would be able to do so as well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/20 17:20:52
Wakshaani wrote: Historicly, when an army retreats is when it's most vulnerable, with an organized retreat difficult but not impossible while disorganized troops can turn it into a rout.
On top of this, there are a couple of issues … tripointing, to keep units pinned in (often just a single model!) to make a unit invulnerable to shooting for a turn and the overall weakness of -1LD or +1 LD for many units. Lastly is the power of the fallback, leaving units hanging in the wind while they get gunned down at no risk to the forces who fell back. As such, here's my proposed rule:
Falling Back: In the movement phase, a unit without fly may declare itself to be Falling Back. A falling back unit ignores enemy models when it moves but follows all other movement rules as normal. After its completed its move, make a Leadership test of 4+1D6 and compare it to the unit's Leadership score. If the test is equal to or less the unit's Leadership, nothing happens. For every 1 the Leadership Test exceeds the unit's Leadership, remove one model from play.
(The wording may need some work. If anyone thinks that they can clean it up, feel free!)
In essence, it's a casualty roll as if the unit had lost 4 models... I chose this number so that units with a Leadership of 10, like Necrons, can Fall Back without worry due to discipline, while lower LD units, like Guard, are riskier. Having a terror unit, like Chaos Raptors, that lowers a unit's LD can be quite damaging to a retreating unit (A Guard unit with -2 LD is going to lose a BUNCH of guys on the retreat) while the few +1 LD traits get more useful.
It makes "Well, I'll fall back with these two special weapon guys to save them" a bit more dangerous and now players might want to leave a unit in melee, where they have a chance to live, vs pulling them back and risking a rout. It removes tripointing, but at the same times makes leaving melee dangerous, to try and leave a bit of a balance in there.
I don't think it's *perfect*, but I think it gives a bit more bite.
What do y'all thnk?
As an assault army, I don't care how many casualties the enemy would take from falling back. As a gunline, I wouldn't care either. All that matters is that I get to shoot the assault unit off the table. You'd have to add in a provision where the unit being fallen back from can't be targeted by shooting.
Yeah. Martel's right about this one-the rule could be "When a unit Falls Back, it is destroyed," and it would STILL be worth it a lot of the time. Not always, but screens that eat a charge and die have served their purpose.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
It may also be important to either rework the moral values of some vehicles or include some words on vehicles. The guard motor pool for example has MWs of 7-8. I personally find it a bit non-sensical that a Leman Russ tank (MW 7) falling back from anything, even a mere guardsmen, would have a 50:50 chance of "loosing a model" = dying. And even Baneblades just have MW 8.
Just roughly scimming over some units I also noticed that knights for example only have MW 9 so would still have a 16.6% chance to blow themselves of every time they fall back.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
Wakshaani wrote: Historicly, when an army retreats is when it's most vulnerable, with an organized retreat difficult but not impossible while disorganized troops can turn it into a rout.
On top of this, there are a couple of issues … tripointing, to keep units pinned in (often just a single model!) to make a unit invulnerable to shooting for a turn and the overall weakness of -1LD or +1 LD for many units. Lastly is the power of the fallback, leaving units hanging in the wind while they get gunned down at no risk to the forces who fell back. As such, here's my proposed rule:
Falling Back: In the movement phase, a unit without fly may declare itself to be Falling Back. A falling back unit ignores enemy models when it moves but follows all other movement rules as normal. After its completed its move, make a Leadership test of 4+1D6 and compare it to the unit's Leadership score. If the test is equal to or less the unit's Leadership, nothing happens. For every 1 the Leadership Test exceeds the unit's Leadership, remove one model from play.
(The wording may need some work. If anyone thinks that they can clean it up, feel free!)
In essence, it's a casualty roll as if the unit had lost 4 models... I chose this number so that units with a Leadership of 10, like Necrons, can Fall Back without worry due to discipline, while lower LD units, like Guard, are riskier. Having a terror unit, like Chaos Raptors, that lowers a unit's LD can be quite damaging to a retreating unit (A Guard unit with -2 LD is going to lose a BUNCH of guys on the retreat) while the few +1 LD traits get more useful.
It makes "Well, I'll fall back with these two special weapon guys to save them" a bit more dangerous and now players might want to leave a unit in melee, where they have a chance to live, vs pulling them back and risking a rout. It removes tripointing, but at the same times makes leaving melee dangerous, to try and leave a bit of a balance in there.
I don't think it's *perfect*, but I think it gives a bit more bite.
What do y'all thnk?
As an assault army, I don't care how many casualties the enemy would take from falling back. As a gunline, I wouldn't care either. All that matters is that I get to shoot the assault unit off the table. You'd have to add in a provision where the unit being fallen back from can't be targeted by shooting.
Also have to balance against making melee an autowin either as
You push it from fall back for a purpose to any unit that Makes CC becomes imune to anything but CC either. Which is what your rule suggestion does.
Everyone agrees wrap and trap is dumb, but it takes skill to do and has a hard counter of fly and being able to position against it.
Add FLG's magic boxes ans melee has some very impossible to counter play.
Martel732 wrote: No. The counter play is counter assault and psyhic powers. And positioning.
Melee was closest to an autowin in 3rd. And it still wasn't that close to an autowin.
" but it takes skill to do"
Not really once you learn the tricks.
"Makes CC becomes imune to anything but CC either. Which is what your rule suggestion does."
Exactly. At this point, feth shooting. Seriously. It's way too good in 8th.
Wow so screw balance and go auto win to whoever brings the best CC monster.
Yeah no thanks, also melee and psychic powers, psychic powers aren't available to all armies. And CC is definitely not available to all factions in a manner that would provide an sort of counter to many CC units.
Also shooting is too good is it so why have bloodangles lists without shooting managed to win events?
Martel732 wrote: No. The counter play is counter assault and psyhic powers. And positioning.
While I agree that fallback should be reworked, I disagree with “the counter play is counter assault and psychic powers”. This leaves tau high and dry, and any other army that’s weak in melee and/or psychic.
IMHO melee forces should be viable builds ( not necessarily winning major events, but should definitely be a lot better than now), and are definitely suffering in the current rules, but that doesn’t mean that the same problems should be inherited by non- melee builds.
on the one hand, if you disengage from combat and can shoot the enemy with everything, then it's skewed against CC units and tri-pointing will be needed to keep things in combat
On the other hand, if you disengage from combat after shooting, then there's no way to prevent the unit from just charging again in their next turn, so there's nothing to gain from falling back - you will be in the same situation, but worse.
One way around this is to keep falling back as part of movement, but to put in ways to prevent it - an opposed roll, where one side tries to escape and the other side tries to stop them. previously (IIRC) it ws roll a dice and add initiative, and if the falling back unit succeeds they escape, and if they fail, they are overrun and are slain. Perhaps a softer version of this would be in order.
EG units roll D6+Ld (in absence of initiative) and if the unit falling back gets highest then they disengage, and if the unit opposing them rolls highest then they do not, and they take mortal wounds equal to the amount they lost by.
I stand by that this should be in place of fighting, so if you wish to do so before your own shooting phase, you must do so when you are charged. Perhaps charging units get +1 to the roll. it needs to not be a given - as people have said, it would be fine for the chaff to all be removed when they flee if it lets the rest of the army shoot. there should be a chance to not get out of combat. and it should be less annoying than tri-pointing!
Vehicles will always move regardless of the roll - they may take damage, but they can (pardon the pun) tank it and roll / wade on through.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
on the one hand, if you disengage from combat and can shoot the enemy with everything, then it's skewed against CC units and tri-pointing will be needed to keep things in combat
On the other hand, if you disengage from combat after shooting, then there's no way to prevent the unit from just charging again in their next turn, so there's nothing to gain from falling back - you will be in the same situation, but worse.
One way around this is to keep falling back as part of movement, but to put in ways to prevent it - an opposed roll, where one side tries to escape and the other side tries to stop them. previously (IIRC) it ws roll a dice and add initiative, and if the falling back unit succeeds they escape, and if they fail, they are overrun and are slain. Perhaps a softer version of this would be in order.
EG units roll D6+Ld (in absence of initiative) and if the unit falling back gets highest then they disengage, and if the unit opposing them rolls highest then they do not, and they take mortal wounds equal to the amount they lost by.
I stand by that this should be in place of fighting, so if you wish to do so before your own shooting phase, you must do so when you are charged. Perhaps charging units get +1 to the roll. it needs to not be a given - as people have said, it would be fine for the chaff to all be removed when they flee if it lets the rest of the army shoot. there should be a chance to not get out of combat. and it should be less annoying than tri-pointing!
Vehicles will always move regardless of the roll - they may take damage, but they can (pardon the pun) tank it and roll / wade on through.
That's a more nuanced and balanced approach and actually Ld is probably the best stat available to use as better troops more likely to fall back have better Ld stats and bonus it would make Ld and its manipulation vaguely relevent for the first time in 8th.
The onyl thing I would be against is dealing MW as they are just so broken. Just make it instead of fighting you can fallback and do the roll off in the fight phase instead of fighting.
Though I hate to day it but as much as everyone agrees tripointing is gamey and weird it also sort of works anything else seems to need a lot of rules changes that go way beyond the likely scope of even an 8.5 edition.
"Also shooting is too good is it so why have bloodangles lists without shooting managed to win events?"
Because they face lists with no answers to tripoint. A couple of counter assaults ruin most BA lists. A single unit of Wulfen will ruin current BA strategy.
Martel732 wrote: No. The counter play is counter assault and psyhic powers. And positioning.
While I agree that fallback should be reworked, I disagree with “the counter play is counter assault and psychic powers”. This leaves tau high and dry, and any other army that’s weak in melee and/or psychic.
IMHO melee forces should be viable builds ( not necessarily winning major events, but should definitely be a lot better than now), and are definitely suffering in the current rules, but that doesn’t mean that the same problems should be inherited by non- melee builds.
You know, they could shoot the OTHER units. Because being ranged gives you that kind of power.
on the one hand, if you disengage from combat and can shoot the enemy with everything, then it's skewed against CC units and tri-pointing will be needed to keep things in combat
On the other hand, if you disengage from combat after shooting, then there's no way to prevent the unit from just charging again in their next turn, so there's nothing to gain from falling back - you will be in the same situation, but worse.
One way around this is to keep falling back as part of movement, but to put in ways to prevent it - an opposed roll, where one side tries to escape and the other side tries to stop them. previously (IIRC) it ws roll a dice and add initiative, and if the falling back unit succeeds they escape, and if they fail, they are overrun and are slain. Perhaps a softer version of this would be in order.
EG units roll D6+Ld (in absence of initiative) and if the unit falling back gets highest then they disengage, and if the unit opposing them rolls highest then they do not, and they take mortal wounds equal to the amount they lost by.
I stand by that this should be in place of fighting, so if you wish to do so before your own shooting phase, you must do so when you are charged. Perhaps charging units get +1 to the roll. it needs to not be a given - as people have said, it would be fine for the chaff to all be removed when they flee if it lets the rest of the army shoot. there should be a chance to not get out of combat. and it should be less annoying than tri-pointing!
Vehicles will always move regardless of the roll - they may take damage, but they can (pardon the pun) tank it and roll / wade on through.
Works for wyches, I suppose. Everyone is a wyche now!
Martel732 wrote: No. The counter play is counter assault and psyhic powers. And positioning.
Melee was closest to an autowin in 3rd. And it still wasn't that close to an autowin.
" but it takes skill to do"
Not really once you learn the tricks.
"Makes CC becomes imune to anything but CC either. Which is what your rule suggestion does."
Exactly. At this point, feth shooting. Seriously. It's way too good in 8th.
Wow so screw balance and go auto win to whoever brings the best CC monster.
Yeah no thanks, also melee and psychic powers, psychic powers aren't available to all armies. And CC is definitely not available to all factions in a manner that would provide an sort of counter to many CC units.
Also shooting is too good is it so why have bloodangles lists without shooting managed to win events?
I guess you never played 3rd-7th. You couldn't fall back at all and melee took it up the ass for at least 3 of those editions.
Also, you don't need huge beatsticks against BA. I kill DC to the man all the time with intercessors. You can kill DC in assault with most armies, really.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/05/20 21:53:38
Brutallica wrote: Fallback AFTER shooting phase is all it takes to make the game balanced.
not at all. here's the scenario:
Orks charge your chaff, and as such fight first and do damage. Chaff fights back, ineffectively.
After you shoot, your chaff falls back.
As y are a gunline, nothing charges.
Orks turn - they get to shoot your unit which fell back, and then charge again (either the chaff or another unit), meaning they get to fight first etc, but have also moved forward!
I can think of maybe a couple of situations where falling back would be anything but a bad move (if you have a countercharge, but your unit is in the way, but could move enough to not be in the way (unlikely), or if you have a fast flying unit which just wants to be out of there. that's all I can think of.)
falling back after shooting just renders it a worthless mechanic - you move out of combat right after you've done anything which would make it worth not being in combat!
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Brutallica wrote: Fallback AFTER shooting phase is all it takes to make the game balanced.
not at all. here's the scenario:
Orks charge your chaff, and as such fight first and do damage. Chaff fights back, ineffectively.
After you shoot, your chaff falls back.
As y are a gunline, nothing charges.
Orks turn - they get to shoot your unit which fell back, and then charge again (either the chaff or another unit), meaning they get to fight first etc, but have also moved forward!
I can think of maybe a couple of situations where falling back would be anything but a bad move (if you have a countercharge, but your unit is in the way, but could move enough to not be in the way (unlikely), or if you have a fast flying unit which just wants to be out of there. that's all I can think of.)
falling back after shooting just renders it a worthless mechanic - you move out of combat right after you've done anything which would make it worth not being in combat!
Units that live to assault should have massive advantages like this, as 75% of such units get blasted apart having accomplished nothing.
Brutallica wrote: Fallback AFTER shooting phase is all it takes to make the game balanced.
not at all. here's the scenario:
Orks charge your chaff, and as such fight first and do damage. Chaff fights back, ineffectively.
After you shoot, your chaff falls back.
As y are a gunline, nothing charges.
Orks turn - they get to shoot your unit which fell back, and then charge again (either the chaff or another unit), meaning they get to fight first etc, but have also moved forward!
I can think of maybe a couple of situations where falling back would be anything but a bad move (if you have a countercharge, but your unit is in the way, but could move enough to not be in the way (unlikely), or if you have a fast flying unit which just wants to be out of there. that's all I can think of.)
falling back after shooting just renders it a worthless mechanic - you move out of combat right after you've done anything which would make it worth not being in combat!
Units that live to assault should have massive advantages like this, as 75% of such units get blasted apart having accomplished nothing.
I agree that currently, gunlines dominate CC armies as they 1: walk away and 2: fire all guns.
However, changing it to "once you're in combat, you screwed" is tilting it right back in the other direction. a unit gets into CC, and all you can do is release it to act normally in its next turn (thereby probably charging again) is an endless cycle of praying that overwatch is effective.
I would prefer the chance that falling back fails, so you might be stuck or you might not.
12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!
Brutallica wrote: Fallback AFTER shooting phase is all it takes to make the game balanced.
not at all. here's the scenario:
Orks charge your chaff, and as such fight first and do damage. Chaff fights back, ineffectively.
After you shoot, your chaff falls back.
As y are a gunline, nothing charges.
Orks turn - they get to shoot your unit which fell back, and then charge again (either the chaff or another unit), meaning they get to fight first etc, but have also moved forward!
I can think of maybe a couple of situations where falling back would be anything but a bad move (if you have a countercharge, but your unit is in the way, but could move enough to not be in the way (unlikely), or if you have a fast flying unit which just wants to be out of there. that's all I can think of.)
falling back after shooting just renders it a worthless mechanic - you move out of combat right after you've done anything which would make it worth not being in combat!
I politely disagree with your assessment. If your army contains any countercharge units, then it shouldn't be difficult to charge them in after falling back with your unit that got charged. So for instance, my dire avenger squad gets charged, manages to survive thanks to the exarch's Defend power, and then falls back at the end of my shooting phase. My shining spears or striking scorpions have jogged into charge position by this point and can charge in to deal with the enemy unit. One thing I like about the "fall back at the end of shooting" suggestion is that it gives countercharge units more of a purpose. Those striking scorpions aren't especially killy, and they can't charge out of deepstrike reliably without a combination of traits, psychic powers, and strats to help them out, but they can slink around my back lines and stay alive in a brawl. Compared to shining spears, they'd be cheaper and easier to hide meaning I wouldn't feel as compelled to throw them across the table to get my points worth out of them.
We talk about how melee units that don't have a delivery system are in a rough place this edition. If there was more call for units to do melee near your own lines, such units might have more of a use.
As for armies that don't really do the melee thing... For tau, I could see this change providing a countercharge niche for kroot. They won't win any fights, but they can probably survive one turn in melee with a lot of foes before dying (right on time) in your opponent's following turn. And if you don't want to throw away cheap bodies, you can always stay in combat and utilize pulse pistols or take advantage of tau mobility to scoot away rather than staying locked into an optimized castle formation. Neither pulse pistols nor mobility seem to get much use in tau armies these days, so this feels like a plus to me. I mean, obviously falling back after shooting is still a nerf to tau, but giving them a reason to utilize underused options and advantages is nice.
For guard, assuming you're not fielding a bunch of psykers or bullgryn, you can always just throw more bodies into the blender. If the enemy unit couldn't kill their way through the first unit, then the second might just stick around long enough to keep your opponent from pushing forward on their turn. Plus, it seems like a pretty fluffy answer for IG.
And as for any army that has access to countercharge units but simply doesn't take them (plenty of understandable reasons for not doing so), well, that would be an intentional list building decision at that point.
You make a lot of good points, but I don't think I'm convinced of your position, personally.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
reverse overwatch - Have the assulting units make all of its atatcls hitting on 6's (no modifiers no re-rolls)
Fall back D6? /3D3? - The attacker can then chase D6? / 3D3?
This means you dont get to fall back scott free and also give the assulting unit the opportunity to chase you down and keep you in combat and potentially contacting other units in your lines.
I dont think this would be oppressive IF you removed double move, re-rolls charges and other shenanighans to equalise it so that making a charge is not pretty much guaranteed. (I.E. Kraken gene stealers)
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Look. casualties from falling back doesnt solve anything. The problem is plain and simple.
unit A charges unit B with their friends unit C behind them in range of their guns
Unit B falls back
Unit A gets destroyed by unit C
This is the problem with fall back in a nutshell. The fact that you open unit A to any shooting by any of your units invalidates everything the unit does.
A melee munching unit is useless cause they either take out the chaff unit and get shot off, or the chaff unit survives, falls back and gets shot off.
No amount of casualties will do anything to resolve this problem.
Instead we have to look at this differently.
Obviously the most common 'solution' is to have fall back in the shooting phase.
This is good in theory, but it makes the result now go in the opposite direction.
example
Unit A charges Unit B with Unit C in range.
Unit B falls back, leaving Unit A unharmed by shooting.
Unit A charges Unit B again, and repeat unit Unit B is dead, with unit A getting closer to Unit C
Charge unit C and rinse and repeat.
So how bout a compromise.
Make fall back still apply in the movement phase, but limit units that can target that unit. Lets make this simple and make it 12".
So the rule is like this:
In Choose targets of the shooting phase, add the following at the end of the paragraph In addition, models cannot target enemy units whom have been Fallen back from unless they are within 12" of the enemy unit
There, you have a way in which you can still counter play melee armies, yet the risk factor is there (being close means they can charge you if it whiffs). This also means that stratagems and such that allow you to shoot after falling back aren't wasted.
But this also means that an army that uses long range shooting has to weigh in danger close fighting, while armies that have bonuses to danger close fighting can actually use them
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/05/21 04:52:03
Argive wrote: reverse overwatch - Have the assulting units make all of its atatcls hitting on 6's (no modifiers no re-rolls)
Fall back D6? /3D3? - The attacker can then chase D6? / 3D3?
This means you dont get to fall back scott free and also give the assulting unit the opportunity to chase you down and keep you in combat and potentially contacting other units in your lines.
I dont think this would be oppressive IF you removed double move, re-rolls charges and other shenanighans to equalise it so that making a charge is not pretty much guaranteed. (I.E. Kraken gene stealers)
The first part sounds like a variation on the trial assault rules from 3rd edition, which is what I'd like to see. But the second half? Most of the good cc units in the game rely on those "shenanigans", remove those and any melee focused army might as well stay home. Even with those melee isn't remotely as assured as shooting.
mchammadad wrote: Look. casualties from falling back doesnt solve anything. The problem is plain and simple.
unit A charges unit B with their friends unit C behind them in range of their guns
Unit B falls back
Unit A gets destroyed by unit C
Preach!
Make fall back still apply in the movement phase, but limit units that can target that unit. Lets make this simple and make it 12".
So the rule is like this:
In Choose targets of the shooting phase, add the following at the end of the paragraph In addition, models cannot target enemy units whom have been Fallen back from unless they are within 12" of the enemy unit
There, you have a way in which you can still counter play melee armies, yet the risk factor is there (being close means they can charge you if it whiffs). This also means that stratagems and such that allow you to shoot after falling back aren't wasted.
But this also means that an army that uses long range shooting has to weigh in danger close fighting, while armies that have bonuses to danger close fighting can actually use them
Hey, watch out for the black ships, 'cause you're clearly a telepath, and you've been using your powers to read my mind.
But yeah, this is my preferred solution. It ....
* gets rid of the weirdness of hostage taking while still providing protection to the unit that was fallen back from.
* invites counter play in the form of getting close to the unit you fell back from, but this in turn means you might be getting closer to the second wave of chargers, might be giving up some of your shooting efficiency by moving, etc.
* Makes counter-charge units and short-ranged guns more appealing because your tank commander or dark reaper squad in the corner can't reach out and delete the berzerkers on the opposite flank.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/21 05:34:17
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Falling Back: In the movement phase, a unit without fly may declare itself to be Falling Back. A falling back unit ignores enemy models when it moves but follows all other movement rules as normal. After its completed its move, make a Leadership test of 4+1D6 and compare it to the unit's Leadership score. If the test is equal to or less the unit's Leadership, nothing happens. For every 1 the Leadership Test exceeds the unit's Leadership, remove one model from play.
In essence, it's a casualty roll as if the unit had lost 4 models... I chose this number so that units with a Leadership of 10, like Necrons, can Fall Back without worry due to discipline, while lower LD units, like Guard, are riskier. Having a terror unit, like Chaos Raptors, that lowers a unit's LD can be quite damaging to a retreating unit (A Guard unit with -2 LD is going to lose a BUNCH of guys on the retreat) while the few +1 LD traits get more useful.
Couple of things i'd like to point out about this, While I like how it makes leadership a bit more relevant, the leadership check should really be taken before the unit leaves combat, otherwise the unit will most likely move out of range of the negative leadership effect and into positive ones, rendering the rule pointless again.
Retreating through an enemy actively trying to attack you is practically a death sentence, so in the times where you do get surrounded to such a degree that you have to move through your enemies lines to escape, this should be more devastating.
I'd say if this was to be implemented, just make the leadership check the usual 2D6 as not being surrounded makes for an easier orderly fallback whereas falling back through a unit should be 3d6 to represent the disorder involved.
As for balancing shooting, make it so that the unit being fallen back from can only be hit on sixes unless the weapon has the "Pistol" type or the unit that fell back has a greater move than the unit that they fell back from.
mchammadad wrote: Obviously the most common 'solution' is to have fall back in the shooting phase.
This is good in theory, but it makes the result now go in the opposite direction.
example
Unit A charges Unit B with Unit C in range.
Unit B falls back, leaving Unit A unharmed by shooting.
Unit A charges Unit B again, and repeat unit Unit B is dead, with unit A getting closer to Unit C
Charge unit C and rinse and repeat.
I think that's precisely how it should play out. It makes room for counter charge units in healthy lists
That assumes all codex's have counter charge units that can achieve anything against a number of these actual CC units. They don't.
Also yeah you counter charged a units of sanguinary guard or DC or Harliquines, watch as they fall back over/through your counter chargers and charge what they like anyway so GG post that turn 1 charge.
mchammadad wrote: Obviously the most common 'solution' is to have fall back in the shooting phase.
This is good in theory, but it makes the result now go in the opposite direction.
example
Unit A charges Unit B with Unit C in range.
Unit B falls back, leaving Unit A unharmed by shooting.
Unit A charges Unit B again, and repeat unit Unit B is dead, with unit A getting closer to Unit C
Charge unit C and rinse and repeat.
I think that's precisely how it should play out. It makes room for counter charge units in healthy lists
That assumes all codex's have counter charge units that can achieve anything against a number of these actual CC units. They don't.
Also yeah you counter charged a units of sanguinary guard or DC or Harliquines, watch as they fall back over/through your counter chargers and charge what they like anyway so GG post that turn 1 charge.
Counter charge doesn't necessarily mean needing to win the fight. You are simply swapping out your unit that can't afford to be stuck in combat with another unit that can be. For example, guardsmen fall back against marines w/ s4 attacks, followed by a counter charge from a empty chimera. Sure, the chimera probably won't be able to do damage to the marines, but the marines' chance of causing a wound drops from 66.7% to 33.3%. Against heavy melee damage dealers such as TH wielding characters, you swap out your high priority target with a tarpit throwaway unit, where the multi-damage weapon swings will be wasted.
Also, by counter charging, you are forcing your opponent to waste his/her unit's movement, shooting & charging phases unless he/she spends CP or use ability that allows movement phase fall backs. Unless intervened by such methods, you as the defender are effectively reducing the enemy unit's potential net movement to pile in and consolidating (3"+ 3"). So there's some gains for the defender as well - it's not just benefiting the unit that was disengaged from.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/05/21 16:47:42
As things are somewhat happening at the same(ish) time on the battlefield: give the unit fallen back from, some advantage when being shot at (as the unit running away would be blocking the view). Something like they get +1 to saves, or -1 to hit till the end of the turn (even both perhaps). Not a complete immunity, but not leaving them completely exposed either.
I'd also always allow fall backs, with tri-pointed models simply being removed as casualties to allow the rest of the unit to retreat. Obviously not a big deal to guard and similar, but painful to elite armies. Might be enough to cause morale check if you do it right, so not all bad.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
6000 World Eaters/Khorne 
Eldar- 4436 pts
5000pts W4/ D0/ L5
5000pts W10/ D2/ L7
