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.

Never understood the Ld test for falling back in previous editions. If your unit is ill-disciplined and prone to panic in tense situations (Ld 3-5) it would run away as soon as they see they have no chance. Why couldn't they run away because of a failed Ld test ? They too dumb to know how to turn and run ?

I could see a Ld test to see how well the retreat is handled by the leader of the unit, using covering fire or something, that minimises the risk involved, but a Ld test to see if you're able to run away...

yukishiro1 wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Hrm. Looking at it more and it notes "may ATTEMPT to Fall Back".

Which means there's a chance of it happening, a chance that it won't.

There's some kind of LD test involved here.

Hrm!

LD test to fall back would make sense, gotta do something to make it easy for space marines but hard for everyone else doncha know.

That would make sense. I could also see the rules allowing a unit to Fall Back d6 inches or something similar.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
Hrm. Looking at it more and it notes "may ATTEMPT to Fall Back".

Which means there's a chance of it happening, a chance that it won't.

There's some kind of LD test involved here.

Hrm!

LD test to fall back would make sense, gotta do something to make it easy for space marines but hard for everyone else doncha know.

Necrons have even better leadership though.

A leadership test to fall back seems logical (and would make Night Lords the kings of trapping people in melee), but I almost expect GW to just have players dice off for it instead.

...or you’re just reading too much into the wording and the may attempt to refers to the fact a couple guys (heck, the entire unit) can die in the process (the dead models failed to fall back).

As a side note, I don’t understand why people are so concerned about the casualties. Most people I know would be happy to just remove the wrapped unit as casualties if it means they can shoot the assault unit now left vulnerable in the open.

Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."

That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.

A bit disappointed that tri-pointing is still a thing. I mean, I guess it's an interesting mechanic for competitive players (I guess?) but not so great for narrative play.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."

That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.

Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
A bit disappointed that tri-pointing is still a thing. I mean, I guess it's an interesting mechanic for competitive players (I guess?) but not so great for narrative play.

The Hive Mind just refuses to shoot into the swirling melee where Termagant Bob is fighting for his life. The guardsmen surrounding Termagant Bob can be heard yelling ’Don’t kill it! We’re safe here! Hey Hive Mind! We got a hostage! Take one more step and we kill Bob!!’

Pariah, Stern+Harlequin, Inquisitor, Szeras next Saturday

 Therion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."

That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.

Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.

But a multi-wrap is rarely done by multi-charging anyway. You generally want to do it by charging one target but committing your units to the target you didn't charge, so you can wrap without having to fight them.

If normal fall back still exists unmodified, GW is even more clueless than we generally think they are. The problem with 8th edition was not melee dominance, and yet every single change previewed so far is buffs for shooting units to make it even easier for them to blast melee units off the table.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/21/sunday-preview-the-psychic-awakening-finale/

Pariah for preview the coming week, WoO!

Imagine if the rule for falling back was done in the morale phase, and you could only fall back if you failed the leadership test (meaning losing models).

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Therion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."

That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.

Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.

But a multi-wrap is rarely done by multi-charging anyway. You generally want to do it by charging one target but committing your units to the target you didn't charge, so you can wrap without having to fight them.

If normal fall back still exists unmodified, GW is even more clueless than we generally think they are. The problem with 8th edition was not melee dominance, and yet every single change previewed so far is buffs for shooting units to make it even easier for them to blast melee units off the table.

You’re not really wrong. Most playtesters that I know consider 9th to be a better game than 8th, but still very much a shooting game.

Random question, is anyone else seeing the difference on the Warhammer 40k store page?

I don't want to prejudice anyone before they check and maybe it's just a thing I've missed, so I'll be putting the weirdness in spoilers:

Ok let's recapitulate...

Overwatch is a strat now
Vehicles can shoot into combat
Multicharges got nerfed
You can't reliable tripoint anymore (remember? They wanted to get rid of a gamey mechanic)

 Therion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Well, it could be "make a LD test to fall back, if you pass you can fall back, if you lose the unit is destroyed."

That's just the kind of thing GW would do, since again it makes falling back even more about just blowing the unit you were in combat off the table and even less about saving the unit that was falling back, which for completely inexplicable reasons they seem totally invested in despite it being totally backwards from how it ought to work.

Normal fall back still exists. This gem is just a bonus for the wrapped unit situation. Now the wrappers need to pull off a multi-unit wrap. That said, multi-charges are a bit more difficult and risky to pull off now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
A bit disappointed that tri-pointing is still a thing. I mean, I guess it's an interesting mechanic for competitive players (I guess?) but not so great for narrative play.

The Hive Mind just refuses to shoot into the swirling melee where Termagant Bob is fighting for his life. The guardsmen surrounding Termagant Bob can be heard yelling ’Don’t kill it! We’re safe here! Hey Hive Mind! We got a hostage! Take one more step and we kill Bob!!’

Yeah and you still have players who “don’t see what the problem is”. I play nids and I actually did have that situation, where I couldn’t kill bob the termagant because he was in synapse range, and my hive guard were being threatened by the unit tri pointing bob. Luckily I smited my way out of the situation but maaaan. Almost lost that tournament game because I could turn synapse off and let bob the last termagant die to morale due to losses in the fight phase. Totally stupid situation...

Can still tri-point, your opponent just has to pay 2CP to suicide the unit out of it, and can't do it if you wrapped multiple units. I.e. the "gamey" mechanic is very much still a huge part of the game, and you still want to do it every single time you can, to drain your opponent's CP if nothing more.

If they wanted to get rid of wrapping they went about it in exactly the wrong way.

It's been awhile, but IIRC older editions forced a unit that failed moral to fall back and if they couldn't due to being trapped, the unit was just outright destroyed. It was a very difficult scenario to set up, but it happened occasionally.

Anyway, this strat. specifically says it's to be used in the Movement Phase so I imagine Fall Back is largely the same as 8th edition.

Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Can still tri-point, your opponent just has to pay 2CP to suicide the unit out of it, and can't do it if you wrapped multiple units. I.e. the "gamey" mechanic is very much still a huge part of the game, and you still want to do it every single time you can, to drain your opponent's CP if nothing more.

If they wanted to get rid of wrapping they went about it in exactly the wrong way.

Yes, if GW has left the fall back rules as they are in 8th, and if they were indeed aiming at getting rid of tripointing, then they really fetched it up big time... Also enough with the stratagems. Why does everything need to cost cp ? Some armies can’t spare any cp, when others really can.

 oni wrote:


Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.

But this doesn't get rid of tri-point at all, in fact it encourages you to do it every single time you can in order to drain your opponent's CP, and makes it even more important than it used to be to trap multiple units.

This is just going to make people to take even more care than they did before in setting up wraps.

 oni wrote:
It's been awhile, but IIRC older editions forced a unit that failed moral to fall back and if they couldn't due to being trapped, the unit was just outright destroyed. It was a very difficult scenario to set up, but it happened occasionally.

Anyway, this strat. specifically says it's to be used in the Movement Phase so I imagine Fall Back is largely the same as 8th edition.

Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.

You also had to fall back towards your table edge in a straight a line as possible, which made it a bit easier to fence people in, then you had sweeping advances to catch them.

This also means that leaked schedule looks to be wrong as well.

Well it's bit exaggeration as you still can do though need opponent either not have cp or be unwilling or 3point 2 units.

Now to see if piling into combat you didn't charge is stil' thing(specifcially pre attacking)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:
This also means that leaked schedule looks to be wrong as well.

Correct. It could be street date 18th. Or there's something between pariah and 9th. There went my guess of rest of lumineth

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I have to assume it is. Because otherwise, why spend 2CP and risk auto destruction?

Logic dictates that the existence of this stratagem means that Fall Back isn't just "waltz out of combat for no cost", because why would one pay points to inflict casualties on themselves when they don't need to.

From what I can see this leaves only two possible explanations:

1. Fall Back as we know it is gone, and it is no longer something you can just do for free without there being an associated cost.
2. GW really have written a 2CP strat for the times when you get tri-pointed. This means that tri-pointing is no longer an tactic borne of an unintended consequence of a rules quirk, but rather something GW expects everyone to do.

From my reading of the strat, my understanding of GW's general rules for 8th and what we've seen for 9th, the existence of the "Cut Them Down" strat and its implications, and GW's typical desire to fix rules with more rules, I'm guessing #2 is most likely. I'm thinking they never really initially intended tripointing given that almost literally every other rules mechanic in the game goes out of its way to avoid such micromanaged model positioning, but once aware of it, decided they didn't want to mess with their original movement/fall back rules but instead would just accept it and add a new Stratagem as a solution for people to play with.

Dudeface wrote:

 oni wrote:
It's been awhile, but IIRC older editions forced a unit that failed moral to fall back and if they couldn't due to being trapped, the unit was just outright destroyed. It was a very difficult scenario to set up, but it happened occasionally.

Anyway, this strat. specifically says it's to be used in the Movement Phase so I imagine Fall Back is largely the same as 8th edition.

Frontline Gaming mentioned in one of their shows that tri-pointing would be a thing of the past. I now assume they were referring to this start.

You also had to fall back towards your table edge in a straight a line as possible, which made it a bit easier to fence people in, then you had sweeping advances to catch them.

Crossfire rule as well.

If you were savvy enough to deep strike a unit in behind the enemy you charged, if they fell back then they were destroyed by the cross firing unit.

Loved that rule, difficult to set up, but it encouraged tactical and strategic play... Most people didn't bother due to the difficulty but you were in my awe if you managed to do it.

Wakshaani wrote:
Hrm. Looking at it more and it notes "may ATTEMPT to Fall Back".

Which means there's a chance of it happening, a chance that it won't.

There's some kind of LD test involved here.

Hrm!

I'd expect move movement, like the old D6+ Initiative tests to get away.
Something like "Each side rolls a D6, with a +1 if their move is higher, +2 if it's double - if the side wanting to fall back gets highest it can otherwise it remains in combat."

 Vaktathi wrote:
decided they didn't want to mess with their original movement/fall back rules but instead would just accept it and add a new Stratagem as a solution for people to play with.

Which is the worst possible solution, the one thing NOBODY really wanted.

So you're probably right.

So what's the current list of core strats? I believe there will be only seven in the new edition?

Original:
1. reroll
2. auto-pass moral
3. interrupt Fight Phase sequence

CA:
4. prepared positions (i.e. cover save for turn no.1)

New:
5. reserves
6. cut them down
7. overwatch
8. fall back through enemy units


Edit... I remembered the seventh one, reserves. That's all of them then.
Edit 2... Prepared positions as an 8th. I thought GW said there would be 7 core strats in the new edition.

Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.

I forgot about prepared positions also. That would make eight and I thought I remembered GW saying their would be seven core stratagems.

It isn't clear whether strategic reserves is a strat or just something you can do for free. From what they've said, there are substantial limitations on it that don't apply to DS/outflank/etc, so it might just be something you can do.

Prepared positions could also be going away, or becoming a base rule for the defender in all cases.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Prepared positions, unless it's becoming a base rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, there is no reason for cut them down (well there's no reason period, it's terrible, but putting that aside for a moment) unless there is an easy way to fall back aside from using that strat. So it's another clue that GW really did think the problem with fall back mechanics was that tri-pointing didn't have a counter, and decided to address it by making tri-pointing an even bigger part of the game. Lol.

This issue is most of the people who are anti fallback are arguing for a pendulum swing of rules changes that results in CC becoming an automatic I win button. Better terrain, smaller distance between armies, not to mention the number of armies that can turn 1 charge with 80%+ reliability would just result in charge, fluff the fight, murder in the deffenders turn, move shoot charge repeat.

No counter play no balance.

CC needed a boost but the aim should be balance not launching it into orbit levels of Over powered like Marines 2.0.