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.

It would really just be easier to have a D6 + LD roll off, and gives more reason to use negative LD modifiers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It would really just be easier to have a D6 + LD roll off, and gives more reason to use negative LD modifiers.

While active use of neg. Ld modifiers would be novel, it would be moot as there are plethora of 'use this unit's leadership instead' mechanics that would make its effects negligible.

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It would really just be easier to have a D6 + LD roll off, and gives more reason to use negative LD modifiers.

While active use of neg. Ld modifiers would be novel, it would be moot as there are plethora of 'use this unit's leadership instead' mechanics that would make its effects negligible.

That in itself is a problem with the morale mechanics I’d like to see adjusted. Alternatively for units with Ld debuffs, perhaps they could have a rule that prevents the target of their aura/attack etc using anything other than their native Ld value. Or for the purposes of falling back, all (or some?) units have to use their native Ld?

 skchsan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It would really just be easier to have a D6 + LD roll off, and gives more reason to use negative LD modifiers.

While active use of neg. Ld modifiers would be novel, it would be moot as there are plethora of 'use this unit's leadership instead' mechanics that would make its effects negligible.

Like where? Also that's probably a good thing as it makes use of that overall useless ability then, no?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 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.

My fear was that this "give chase" mechanic would be too oppressive. But maybe not. It would just force people to play more cagey with deployment to avoid getting completely overrun and penned in. Static tight castle gun-line style armies would really suffer most, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

So if my Unit A charges enemy unit C and fights resolves combat etc. In the subsequent enemy movement phase, enemy units D & F which are close would then have to move or risk getting caught in the "give chase" mechanic nd getting tagged themselves. Or risk staying where they are in hopes assaulting unit lows poorly on the "give chase".

As current rules and abilities stand I think this would not work due to the extremes. Like 30 Orc boys being da jumped and then charging one unit but ending up enveloping the entire line in a long conga line.

Might i remind people of the KISS method

Keep

It

Simple

Stupid


A rule with a lot of moving parts is something which is going to just lead to a lot of confusion and misinterpretations

a great example in this edition is how people were asking the question in the beginning if aura's applied to the user because of how the term 'friendly' was described

Anyway. A chase mechanic is just adding a fancy cog into the mix, the simplest solution is to just make it a system which is not completely protected but has a big catch to break that protection.

Case in point, the targeting restriction. And it is easy to implement because all it's doing is adding one extra sentence in the rule book. No new X mechanic, no fancy gimmick, no need to remember some convoluted system. It's simple basic logic

Just as a food for thought:

I fully understand, that it would be more realistic if it was not that easy to fall back and shoot up the assaulting unit. On the same page it is also very unrealistic that units in CC are 100% protected from shooting (Imaging the classical "oh no, we cannot shoot that night, we might hit the lone guardsman at his right foot").
Would it be a feasible way to implement a very restrictive fall back rule (like "Units falling back suffer 1 mortal wound for each model they fall back from" or something similar cruel) under the concession, that units in CC can still be shot at under the heavy risk of wounding your own units? Could be something like "If a unit within 1'' of a friendly unit is selected for a ranged attack, each missed hit is applied to the friendly unit instead"?

It's really just a wild idea for discussion, I totally lack experience with assault and currently struggle to tackle if that would punish assaulting units to much

All of the proposals have fewer moving parts than tripointing. Sit through some BA and Ork assault phases.

"Units falling back suffer 1 mortal wound for each model they fall back from" or something similar cruel) under the concession, that units in CC can still be shot at under the heavy risk of wounding your own units?"

Gunlines will happily murder everything. Watched it happen many times in 2nd.

Martel732 wrote:
All of the proposals have fewer moving parts than tripointing. Sit through some BA and Ork assault phases.

I don't think that's quite what people are getting at. The "moving parts" is more about how the rule is worded. In that sense tri-pointing is actually very simple - it has no rules mechanics parts as there isn't a rule called tri-pointing. It's just a consequence of the interplay of a bunch of other rules, which is probably one of the reasons it's seen as being "gamey".

What I think a lot of these Fallback solutions miss is that the problems of close combat effectiveness vs shooting effectiveness are deeply rooted in the fundamentals of the game system. Without making very significant changes to not just the sstem but the whole design philosophy I'm not sure you'll achieve what you want with Fallback. GW decided to massively increase the threat range of assault units, with a significant number having easy ways to assault in turn 1. That then required a system to prevent melee just dominating by tying units up in close combat, so we ended up with the ham-fisted Fallback rules. I think if you really want to solve this problem you need to start with making close combat something that's a bit more difficult to initiate but allow it to be more effective once you get there. That's how previous versions of the game did it, with varying degrees of success. As we can see from the various suggestions here, they all feel like putting band-aids over gunshot wounds.

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All of the proposals have fewer moving parts than tripointing. Sit through some BA and Ork assault phases.

I don't think that's quite what people are getting at. The "moving parts" is more about how the rule is worded. In that sense tri-pointing is actually very simple - it has no rules mechanics parts as there isn't a rule called tri-pointing. It's just a consequence of the interplay of a bunch of other rules, which is probably one of the reasons it's seen as being "gamey".

What I think a lot of these Fallback solutions miss is that the problems of close combat effectiveness vs shooting effectiveness are deeply rooted in the fundamentals of the game system. Without making very significant changes to not just the sstem but the whole design philosophy I'm not sure you'll achieve what you want with Fallback. GW decided to massively increase the threat range of assault units, with a significant number having easy ways to assault in turn 1. That then required a system to prevent melee just dominating by tying units up in close combat, so we ended up with the ham-fisted Fallback rules. I think if you really want to solve this problem you need to start with making close combat something that's a bit more difficult to initiate but allow it to be more effective once you get there. That's how previous versions of the game did it, with varying degrees of success. As we can see from the various suggestions here, they all feel like putting band-aids over gunshot wounds.

I think this is pretty fair. I also think a possible solution would be rather than changing fallback rules drastically, reducing the overall effectiveness of shooting would go a long way to fixing the issues with melee and fallback.

An unintended consequence, for sure.

GW has managed to put CC on the short end of the stick since 5th. I don't know if they ever had any intent to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All of the proposals have fewer moving parts than tripointing. Sit through some BA and Ork assault phases.

I don't think that's quite what people are getting at. The "moving parts" is more about how the rule is worded. In that sense tri-pointing is actually very simple - it has no rules mechanics parts as there isn't a rule called tri-pointing. It's just a consequence of the interplay of a bunch of other rules, which is probably one of the reasons it's seen as being "gamey".

What I think a lot of these Fallback solutions miss is that the problems of close combat effectiveness vs shooting effectiveness are deeply rooted in the fundamentals of the game system. Without making very significant changes to not just the sstem but the whole design philosophy I'm not sure you'll achieve what you want with Fallback. GW decided to massively increase the threat range of assault units, with a significant number having easy ways to assault in turn 1. That then required a system to prevent melee just dominating by tying units up in close combat, so we ended up with the ham-fisted Fallback rules. I think if you really want to solve this problem you need to start with making close combat something that's a bit more difficult to initiate but allow it to be more effective once you get there. That's how previous versions of the game did it, with varying degrees of success. As we can see from the various suggestions here, they all feel like putting band-aids over gunshot wounds.

I think this is pretty fair. I also think a possible solution would be rather than changing fallback rules drastically, reducing the overall effectiveness of shooting would go a long way to fixing the issues with melee and fallback.

Getting close in 8th is basically suicide without tripointing.

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All of the proposals have fewer moving parts than tripointing. Sit through some BA and Ork assault phases.

I don't think that's quite what people are getting at. The "moving parts" is more about how the rule is worded. In that sense tri-pointing is actually very simple - it has no rules mechanics parts as there isn't a rule called tri-pointing. It's just a consequence of the interplay of a bunch of other rules, which is probably one of the reasons it's seen as being "gamey".

What I think a lot of these Fallback solutions miss is that the problems of close combat effectiveness vs shooting effectiveness are deeply rooted in the fundamentals of the game system. Without making very significant changes to not just the sstem but the whole design philosophy I'm not sure you'll achieve what you want with Fallback. GW decided to massively increase the threat range of assault units, with a significant number having easy ways to assault in turn 1. That then required a system to prevent melee just dominating by tying units up in close combat, so we ended up with the ham-fisted Fallback rules. I think if you really want to solve this problem you need to start with making close combat something that's a bit more difficult to initiate but allow it to be more effective once you get there. That's how previous versions of the game did it, with varying degrees of success. As we can see from the various suggestions here, they all feel like putting band-aids over gunshot wounds.

I think this is pretty fair. I also think a possible solution would be rather than changing fallback rules drastically, reducing the overall effectiveness of shooting would go a long way to fixing the issues with melee and fallback.

Yeah, I think given how easy it is to shoot something in an edition with barely functional terrain rules and extreme mobility and range they probably shouldn't have stacked all the various re-rolls and other buffs on to shooting too. As a completely random experiment I'd suggest removing 1 point of AP from every weapon in the game, then changing all re-roll auras into a targeted buff like the Necron Overlord's +1 to hit buff and seeing how that changed things. I don't think it would solve everything by any means but it would probably provide a more meaningful starting point than tinkering around the edges of the Fallback rules.

Slipspace wrote:

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All of the proposals have fewer moving parts than tripointing. Sit through some BA and Ork assault phases.

I don't think that's quite what people are getting at. The "moving parts" is more about how the rule is worded. In that sense tri-pointing is actually very simple - it has no rules mechanics parts as there isn't a rule called tri-pointing. It's just a consequence of the interplay of a bunch of other rules, which is probably one of the reasons it's seen as being "gamey".

What I think a lot of these Fallback solutions miss is that the problems of close combat effectiveness vs shooting effectiveness are deeply rooted in the fundamentals of the game system. Without making very significant changes to not just the sstem but the whole design philosophy I'm not sure you'll achieve what you want with Fallback. GW decided to massively increase the threat range of assault units, with a significant number having easy ways to assault in turn 1. That then required a system to prevent melee just dominating by tying units up in close combat, so we ended up with the ham-fisted Fallback rules. I think if you really want to solve this problem you need to start with making close combat something that's a bit more difficult to initiate but allow it to be more effective once you get there. That's how previous versions of the game did it, with varying degrees of success. As we can see from the various suggestions here, they all feel like putting band-aids over gunshot wounds.

I think this is pretty fair. I also think a possible solution would be rather than changing fallback rules drastically, reducing the overall effectiveness of shooting would go a long way to fixing the issues with melee and fallback.

Yeah, I think given how easy it is to shoot something in an edition with barely functional terrain rules and extreme mobility and range they probably shouldn't have stacked all the various re-rolls and other buffs on to shooting too. As a completely random experiment I'd suggest removing 1 point of AP from every weapon in the game, then changing all re-roll auras into a targeted buff like the Necron Overlord's +1 to hit buff and seeing how that changed things. I don't think it would solve everything by any means but it would probably provide a more meaningful starting point than tinkering around the edges of the Fallback rules.

I think that’s pretty much where my head’s at too. I think auras and rerolls definitely need looking at, and even with a reduction to the effectiveness of shooting, the mechanics of melee and fallback would probably still need adjusting.

Slipspace wrote:

Aash wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All of the proposals have fewer moving parts than tripointing. Sit through some BA and Ork assault phases.

I don't think that's quite what people are getting at. The "moving parts" is more about how the rule is worded. In that sense tri-pointing is actually very simple - it has no rules mechanics parts as there isn't a rule called tri-pointing. It's just a consequence of the interplay of a bunch of other rules, which is probably one of the reasons it's seen as being "gamey".

What I think a lot of these Fallback solutions miss is that the problems of close combat effectiveness vs shooting effectiveness are deeply rooted in the fundamentals of the game system. Without making very significant changes to not just the sstem but the whole design philosophy I'm not sure you'll achieve what you want with Fallback. GW decided to massively increase the threat range of assault units, with a significant number having easy ways to assault in turn 1. That then required a system to prevent melee just dominating by tying units up in close combat, so we ended up with the ham-fisted Fallback rules. I think if you really want to solve this problem you need to start with making close combat something that's a bit more difficult to initiate but allow it to be more effective once you get there. That's how previous versions of the game did it, with varying degrees of success. As we can see from the various suggestions here, they all feel like putting band-aids over gunshot wounds.

I think this is pretty fair. I also think a possible solution would be rather than changing fallback rules drastically, reducing the overall effectiveness of shooting would go a long way to fixing the issues with melee and fallback.

Yeah, I think given how easy it is to shoot something in an edition with barely functional terrain rules and extreme mobility and range they probably shouldn't have stacked all the various re-rolls and other buffs on to shooting too. As a completely random experiment I'd suggest removing 1 point of AP from every weapon in the game, then changing all re-roll auras into a targeted buff like the Necron Overlord's +1 to hit buff and seeing how that changed things. I don't think it would solve everything by any means but it would probably provide a more meaningful starting point than tinkering around the edges of the Fallback rules.

Auras are fething terrible. Why encourage marines to cluster up and play like Tau?

In general, given that ranged combat requires the least amount of effort to utilise it should probably be buffed the least, whereas right now it's probably subject to at least equal amount of buffing than melee. In the specific case of Marines it seems like GW have moved far away form the mobile elite force they should be to a static castle. Tau are pretty bad offenders here too - all the lore says they're highly mobile, synergistic armies that hit you from multiple directions like a pack of hunters. In-game they stand around their various buffs and hide behind a swarm of Drones.

As I said, just adjusting shooting probably doesn't immediately fix melee and Fallback but would be a good start to get a baseline to work from. I'd expect you'd need to also reduce movement rates to somewhat compensate and I think that would also have the advantage of adding a bit more nuance and decision-making to the game. It's not like there's really any skill in moving 18"+ then charging in a single turn.

Slipspace wrote:
In general, given that ranged combat requires the least amount of effort to utilise it should probably be buffed the least, whereas right now it's probably subject to at least equal amount of buffing than melee. In the specific case of Marines it seems like GW have moved far away form the mobile elite force they should be to a static castle. Tau are pretty bad offenders here too - all the lore says they're highly mobile, synergistic armies that hit you from multiple directions like a pack of hunters. In-game they stand around their various buffs and hide behind a swarm of Drones.

As I said, just adjusting shooting probably doesn't immediately fix melee and Fallback but would be a good start to get a baseline to work from. I'd expect you'd need to also reduce movement rates to somewhat compensate and I think that would also have the advantage of adding a bit more nuance and decision-making to the game. It's not like there's really any skill in moving 18"+ then charging in a single turn.

You say that, but if the only unit within reach isn't worth charging, it's get dicey fast. Even 18"+ then charge would be worthless without tripoint.

Martel732 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
In general, given that ranged combat requires the least amount of effort to utilise it should probably be buffed the least, whereas right now it's probably subject to at least equal amount of buffing than melee. In the specific case of Marines it seems like GW have moved far away form the mobile elite force they should be to a static castle. Tau are pretty bad offenders here too - all the lore says they're highly mobile, synergistic armies that hit you from multiple directions like a pack of hunters. In-game they stand around their various buffs and hide behind a swarm of Drones.

As I said, just adjusting shooting probably doesn't immediately fix melee and Fallback but would be a good start to get a baseline to work from. I'd expect you'd need to also reduce movement rates to somewhat compensate and I think that would also have the advantage of adding a bit more nuance and decision-making to the game. It's not like there's really any skill in moving 18"+ then charging in a single turn.

You say that, but if the only unit within reach isn't worth charging, it's get dicey fast. Even 18"+ then charge would be worthless without tripoint.

I don’t see why tripointing has to remain necessary if shooting was less effective and fallback rules were adjusted. For instance, would tripointing be necessary if a unit that was engaged in combat and fallen back from was unable to be targeted and eliminated by enemy shooting in a single shooting phase? Or if fallback wasn’t allowed at all and units were locked in combat. There are many ways to make melee more effective without relying on tripointing. Personally I dislike it as a mechanic in the game and would like to see it gone, but there would need to be other changes to the ruleset to make melee viable.

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
In general, given that ranged combat requires the least amount of effort to utilise it should probably be buffed the least, whereas right now it's probably subject to at least equal amount of buffing than melee. In the specific case of Marines it seems like GW have moved far away form the mobile elite force they should be to a static castle. Tau are pretty bad offenders here too - all the lore says they're highly mobile, synergistic armies that hit you from multiple directions like a pack of hunters. In-game they stand around their various buffs and hide behind a swarm of Drones.

As I said, just adjusting shooting probably doesn't immediately fix melee and Fallback but would be a good start to get a baseline to work from. I'd expect you'd need to also reduce movement rates to somewhat compensate and I think that would also have the advantage of adding a bit more nuance and decision-making to the game. It's not like there's really any skill in moving 18"+ then charging in a single turn.

You say that, but if the only unit within reach isn't worth charging, it's get dicey fast. Even 18"+ then charge would be worthless without tripoint.

I don’t see why tripointing has to remain necessary if shooting was less effective and fallback rules were adjusted. For instance, would tripointing be necessary if a unit that was engaged in combat and fallen back from was unable to be targeted and eliminated by enemy shooting in a single shooting phase? Or if fallback wasn’t allowed at all and units were locked in combat. There are many ways to make melee more effective without relying on tripointing. Personally I dislike it as a mechanic in the game and would like to see it gone, but there would need to be other changes to the ruleset to make melee viable.

I get that, but assault units have been easily removable at close range since at least 5th ed. I probably hate tripointing more than you even, because I have to do it over and over with units known for their bloodlust. I have to minimize damage on the charge to make it work. It's so dumb that even if lockdown were lifted here, I probably wouldn't cross town to play live.

I get that, but assault units have been easily removable at close range since at least 5th ed. I probably hate tripointing more than you even, because I have to do it over and over with units known for their bloodlust. I have to minimize damage on the charge to make it work. It's so dumb that even if lockdown were lifted here, I probably wouldn't cross town to play live.

As someone who regularly uses tripointing in order to make melee viable, what change(s) would you consider or think could be introduced to the game that would make melee viable while eliminating tripointing, so that all or mostly melee lists (BA, daemons etc) were able to go toe to toe with other armies, while making sure that the opposite ( gun line, weak/no melee and psychic armies like tau) would also be viable builds?

That's a very good question. Tau already have an ace card with screens that can fly under the current system. I'm honestly thinking maybe eliminate tripoint and fallback, and bring back shooting into melee with randomized hits. If I can make you shoot your own guys to kill me, I'm fine with that. Might be too slow though with modern model counts. GW has dug quite the hole.

I think if you wanted to randomise hits in close combat, a simple 50/50 split of hits between sides would be fine, with attacker assigning any odd hits. Yes, it's not as good as a purely randomised system based on the number of models involved from each side but it's probably good enough for ease of play.

Martel732 wrote:
That's a very good question. Tau already have an ace card with screens that can fly under the current system. I'm honestly thinking maybe eliminate tripoint and fallback, and bring back shooting into melee with randomized hits. If I can make you shoot your own guys to kill me, I'm fine with that. Might be too slow though with modern model counts. GW has dug quite the hole.

I’m not sure that would help the melee units though. If a strong melee unit is in combat with a weak disposable unit like most screens, then shooting into it will give the same net result as a fallback mechanic that imposes mortal wounds/hits etc on the falling back unit. The screen takes some hits and the melee unit can get wiped out by enemy shooting.

Something like this would really only work in conjunction with reducing the effectiveness of shooting across the board I think. Not that I’ve got any awesome ideas of how to fix it, but it’s definitely an issue I’d like to see dealt with!!

Slipspace wrote:
I think if you wanted to randomise hits in close combat, a simple 50/50 split of hits between sides would be fine, with attacker assigning any odd hits. Yes, it's not as good as a purely randomised system based on the number of models involved from each side but it's probably good enough for ease of play.

If going this route, don't even roll. Just take the hits and divide them 50/50. Just roll an odd hit off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's a very good question. Tau already have an ace card with screens that can fly under the current system. I'm honestly thinking maybe eliminate tripoint and fallback, and bring back shooting into melee with randomized hits. If I can make you shoot your own guys to kill me, I'm fine with that. Might be too slow though with modern model counts. GW has dug quite the hole.

I’m not sure that would help the melee units though. If a strong melee unit is in combat with a weak disposable unit like most screens, then shooting into it will give the same net result as a fallback mechanic that imposes mortal wounds/hits etc on the falling back unit. The screen takes some hits and the melee unit can get wiped out by enemy shooting.

Something like this would really only work in conjunction with reducing the effectiveness of shooting across the board I think. Not that I’ve got any awesome ideas of how to fix it, but it’s definitely an issue I’d like to see dealt with!!

It's like a 4++ that runs out.

Martel732 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
I think if you wanted to randomise hits in close combat, a simple 50/50 split of hits between sides would be fine, with attacker assigning any odd hits. Yes, it's not as good as a purely randomised system based on the number of models involved from each side but it's probably good enough for ease of play.

If going this route, don't even roll. Just take the hits and divide them 50/50. Just roll an odd hit off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aash wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's a very good question. Tau already have an ace card with screens that can fly under the current system. I'm honestly thinking maybe eliminate tripoint and fallback, and bring back shooting into melee with randomized hits. If I can make you shoot your own guys to kill me, I'm fine with that. Might be too slow though with modern model counts. GW has dug quite the hole.

I’m not sure that would help the melee units though. If a strong melee unit is in combat with a weak disposable unit like most screens, then shooting into it will give the same net result as a fallback mechanic that imposes mortal wounds/hits etc on the falling back unit. The screen takes some hits and the melee unit can get wiped out by enemy shooting.

Something like this would really only work in conjunction with reducing the effectiveness of shooting across the board I think. Not that I’ve got any awesome ideas of how to fix it, but it’s definitely an issue I’d like to see dealt with!!

It's like a 4++ that runs out.

Assuming it’s a 50/50 split, but one surviving guardsman in close combat against 10 space marines shouldn’t mean that incoming shooting would be split evenly between the units. And even if it were, fire at the close combat without fast rolling until the lone guardsman dies then open up with the rest of your shooting to wipe out the assault squad. I see what your going for, but it doesn’t quite work for me.

mchammadad wrote:


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

Hold up, gang. What about the quoted proposal here? I feel like the conversation kind of passed over it, and I feel like similar pitches get passed over without discussion in other Fall Back threads where they're proposed. To my eyes, it seems like this solves most of the issues we're discussing. Is there some big drawback to this proposal that I'm overlooking?

If the main issues of fallback can basically be boiled down to:
A.) Gunlines can just have their screens fall back and then blast the melee units to death.
B.) Taking prisoners feels gamey and frustrating.

... then doesn't the quoted proposal (possibly combined with letting models fall back through enemy models) address those issues?

It's not bad, but you can crush in a lot of stuff within 12". Maybe it's the best idea so far though.

That was kinda the whole point why i suggested it.

It's a shield, but it's not an invincible shield cause you have to work for it

Yeah, I'd be certainly willing to try it.

It could work, but only if the unit falling back has to pass some kind of test in order to do so first, probably based on leadership or movement. Units shouldn't just be able to walk out of combat.

This rule just makes it harder for an enemy to effectively wipe out the unit their one fell back from.

The fact that the unit that fell back has all the downsides of fall back means it doesn't really need anything else.

That unit fell back, meh it can't shoot or charge anyway. So it's already being punished.

But this means that you can't just auto delete it with the rest of your army like what current fall back allows.

With this you have to earn it, and to earn it you have to risk getting close.

And this also means that those units that have special rules stopping fall backs means they are still relevant (Skarbrand,seekers,Wyches ect.)