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.

 Sasori wrote:
The strat is bad, no question. This should have been a core rule.

I'm hoping there is something in the core rule that punishes falling back, because this ain't it.

This is a core rule. From the way they're talking about this, every army has access to this stratagem.

This is not something that should just automatically happen. Not unless Overwatch also becomes Mortal Wounds--because this is the melee overwatch people were crying about wanting.
I get that melee has it rough--but it seems like people won't be happy until Falling Back makes the unit explode into meatchunks that take out a whole army or some crap.

As a harlequin player, this strat feels bad. Not only is it giving every army something that used to be our shtick (we have a couple strats that punish enemies for falling back), but falling back and charging is basically an army-wide rule for us. It's what we do. This seems tailor made to feth harlequins. And it's mortal wounds, which we hate. A mortal wound on average won't be a big deal to a primaris. They'll survive it. Not a big deal to a vehicle. They'll survive it. Not a big deal to a horde of gaunts or guardsmen or whatever. One casualty is whatever. But like a 20 point elite 1W harlequin model? Yeah. That's rough.

There is only one solution that makes sense for melee units.

They have tried making melee units have automatic turn 1 charges and it is OP.

They have tried making units unkillable once they make it to assault and it is OP.

There is ONLY 1 solution to make melee units viable - they must cost a lot less.Everything in a game like this comes down to cost.

Personally the idea of locking up units in assault is stupid to me. Considering everything is happening in real time on the battlefield - ranged units with no melee ability to no stand and die - they run - in fact they were running before you got there. The damage being done as they flee is happening in your assault phase. People just need to get over this idea that units need to become impervious to damage via some mechanic - there is nothing more unfun than not being able to attack the units you need to or want to. All mechanics should be fun. If a mechanic is unfun it should be removed with a mechanic that is fun.

I guess there is also another mechanic that could work. All armies must have some protion of melee in their army could also work - but it would also be stupid.

Getting gunned down on turn one isn't fun and the consistent resistance to inconvenience long range gunnery is aggravating.

It would be better for the game if guns wasn't the answer to everything. Requiring counter assault elements the same way you need AT weapons would both make the game more interesting and reduce early barrages strength. Armies like Tau would need some Xenos auxiliary elements added but it would be good for the health of the game.

Melee is either part of their game or it isn't. The constant hoops to jump through being added while also making it more and more effortless to negate/recover from being engaged doesn't make it feel like they view it as an important part of the game.

How about from proposed rules: only units within 12" can shoot a unit that was fallen back from. And make units ignore other models when falling back so they can't be trapped.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Aash wrote:
Thinking further on this strategem, I could see it being used to try and chisel off one or two more wounds to knock something big down into the next stat bracket.

Aye, that's a good use-case too. Counteracted somewhat by the apparent ability to fire from combat, but still.

It really smacks of someone having a misguided belief that MW are good for the game, they dont the lead to devaluation of defensive stats and reduce everything to FNP or die.

Well that's a little strong. Personally I'm fine with Mortal Wounds, the application of them is where problems arise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
How about from proposed rules: only units within 12" can shoot a unit that was fallen back from. And make units ignore other models when falling back so they can't be trapped.

I think I'm cool with that, honestly.

I don't like the usage of mortal wounds.

Just give the other unit an opportunity attack, if you must, with some negative to hit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
The strat is bad, no question. This should have been a core rule.

I'm hoping there is something in the core rule that punishes falling back, because this ain't it.

This is a core rule. From the way they're talking about this, every army has access to this stratagem.

This is not something that should just automatically happen. Not unless Overwatch also becomes Mortal Wounds--because this is the melee overwatch people were crying about wanting.
I get that melee has it rough--but it seems like people won't be happy until Falling Back makes the unit explode into meatchunks that take out a whole army or some crap.

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

What if falling back wasn't a dead certainty any more but you can trigger the strat anyway? Would that help? If for example you roll off before a unit falls back (sorry wyches) or it only succeeds on a 4+ or something.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Aash wrote:
Thinking further on this strategem, I could see it being used to try and chisel off one or two more wounds to knock something big down into the next stat bracket.

Aye, that's a good use-case too. Counteracted somewhat by the apparent ability to fire from combat, but still.

It really smacks of someone having a misguided belief that MW are good for the game, they dont the lead to devaluation of defensive stats and reduce everything to FNP or die.

Well that's a little strong. Personally I'm fine with Mortal Wounds, the application of them is where problems arise.

Mw for Psychic powers fine for some realy special relic weapons and other special cases like 1MW if you roll a 6 to wound on a Rail gun okay I get.

Demons can now avarage 12 MW on the charge to anything in the game for 1CP thats half a 400+ point models wounds for 1CP thats indefensible.

I may be in the minority here but I am really happy for this strat.

It means my 90 Hormagaunts might (at least 1 unit anyways) be able to actually KILL something!!!

Also, from what I`ve seen on multiple threads here people are still only thinking in terms of how efficient is this or that in any given situation but ignoring the fact that The Rest Of the Game Is Happening At the Same Time!

This strat may only actually produce a couple of wounds at most when used, but those wounds may end up being critical if they help the rest of your army kill the target in a later turn.

From what has been shown so far (don't get me wrong, they may have further to go) GW seems to be trying to counteract the concept of units having to literally delete an enemy in one round to be effective (see cp changes, the one mission shown so far which frankly is going to favor horde armies or armies with lots of cheap units that can afford to not be shooting etc).

Yes, as a Tyranid player I understand that overwatch is a pain in some armies ( "cough" tau "cough") but unless its been flamer type weapons I have never lost enough models from it to make an assault any less worthwhile.

For those who are about to say "but whats the point of assault if the unit just gets blasted off the board next turn?" I would say this, you now have a threat they have to deal with. Dealing with this will draw fire from the rest of your army (I would much rather people be shooting at my gaunts that are right in front of their line than my fex or whatever that are still trying to catch up).

Falling back is NOT a bad rule in itself, it just did not have the possibility of any downsides where now it does.

This sort of thing is also why I think the the good old approach of "blow all your cp in turn 1 or 2" is going the way of the dodo.

"Falling back is NOT a bad rule in itself, it just did not have the possibility of any downsides where now it does."

It's not really much of a downside. And they will still do it so they can mow down your 90 gaunts.

 Brutallica wrote:



No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Yeah, falling back should definitely cost at least 1 CP. Also overwatch could cost 1 CP, it's another stupid thing that slows down the game and it was certainly better when it didn't exist.

princeyg wrote:
I may be in the minority here but I am really happy for this strat.

It means my 90 Hormagaunts might (at least 1 unit anyways) be able to actually KILL something!!!

Also, from what I`ve seen on multiple threads here people are still only thinking in terms of how efficient is this or that in any given situation but ignoring the fact that The Rest Of the Game Is Happening At the Same Time!

This strat may only actually produce a couple of wounds at most when used, but those wounds may end up being critical if they help the rest of your army kill the target in a later turn.

From what has been shown so far (don't get me wrong, they may have further to go) GW seems to be trying to counteract the concept of units having to literally delete an enemy in one round to be effective (see cp changes, the one mission shown so far which frankly is going to favor horde armies or armies with lots of cheap units that can afford to not be shooting etc).

Yes, as a Tyranid player I understand that overwatch is a pain in some armies ( "cough" tau "cough") but unless its been flamer type weapons I have never lost enough models from it to make an assault any less worthwhile.

For those who are about to say "but whats the point of assault if the unit just gets blasted off the board next turn?" I would say this, you now have a threat they have to deal with. Dealing with this will draw fire from the rest of your army (I would much rather people be shooting at my gaunts that are right in front of their line than my fex or whatever that are still trying to catch up).

Falling back is NOT a bad rule in itself, it just did not have the possibility of any downsides where now it does.

This sort of thing is also why I think the the good old approach of "blow all your cp in turn 1 or 2" is going the way of the dodo.

Hgants are op now with PA, what do you mean might kill? They can kill a lot of things lol. I was already thinking 120 Hgants would be OP, with all these new 9th rules I might have to rebuy my nids again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:



No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Yeah, falling back should definitely cost at least 1 CP. Also overwatch could cost 1 CP, it's another stupid thing that slows down the game and it was certainly better when it didn't exist.

I 100% agree with this.

Martel732 wrote:
How about from proposed rules: only units within 12" can shoot a unit that was fallen back from.

I think it would be too easy to use that to zone out huge chunks of the opponents army on a semi-permanent basis. It's a hard problem though, all of us have put some thought into how we would fix it.

The issue is that the current fall back scheme punishes the unit falling back, but more often than not falling back isn't about saving the unit that fell back, it's about nuking the poor unit left out in the open with their danglely bits flapping in the breeze. So that's on the right track because any solution to the fall back problem will have to focus on the unit that is being fallen back from. The unit that gets left behind after a fall back should get some defensive benefit, such as a minus to be hit with ranged attacks, or a FnP save.

It represents a trade off, after you fall back you get to shoot them, but you've made them a harder target. You'd just have to dial in how strong the consequences need to be to make it a meaningful decision rather than a non-decision like it is currently. My initial thought is a -1 to hit should do the trick, because even a -1 really messes with gun-lines, but I'd want to do some testing to make sure.

[spoiler]

 Amishprn86 wrote:

princeyg wrote:
I may be in the minority here but I am really happy for this strat.

It means my 90 Hormagaunts might (at least 1 unit anyways) be able to actually KILL something!!!

Also, from what I`ve seen on multiple threads here people are still only thinking in terms of how efficient is this or that in any given situation but ignoring the fact that The Rest Of the Game Is Happening At the Same Time!

This strat may only actually produce a couple of wounds at most when used, but those wounds may end up being critical if they help the rest of your army kill the target in a later turn.

From what has been shown so far (don't get me wrong, they may have further to go) GW seems to be trying to counteract the concept of units having to literally delete an enemy in one round to be effective (see cp changes, the one mission shown so far which frankly is going to favor horde armies or armies with lots of cheap units that can afford to not be shooting etc).

Yes, as a Tyranid player I understand that overwatch is a pain in some armies ( "cough" tau "cough") but unless its been flamer type weapons I have never lost enough models from it to make an assault any less worthwhile.

For those who are about to say "but whats the point of assault if the unit just gets blasted off the board next turn?" I would say this, you now have a threat they have to deal with. Dealing with this will draw fire from the rest of your army (I would much rather people be shooting at my gaunts that are right in front of their line than my fex or whatever that are still trying to catch up).

Falling back is NOT a bad rule in itself, it just did not have the possibility of any downsides where now it does.

This sort of thing is also why I think the the good old approach of "blow all your cp in turn 1 or 2" is going the way of the dodo.

Hgants are op now with PA, what do you mean might kill? They can kill a lot of things lol. I was already thinking 120 Hgants would be OP, with all these new 9th rules I might have to rebuy my nids again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:



No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Yeah, falling back should definitely cost at least 1 CP. Also overwatch could cost 1 CP, it's another stupid thing that slows down the game and it was certainly better when it didn't exist.

I 100% agree with this.

Ahh, dont actually own that PA book yet ( dammed world went apocalyptic just as I was about to order it.

PS. Could anyone please pm me with instructions on how to partially quote someone? (i.e just the bits I am responding to? I am an unashamedly techno unsavvy 41 year old.

Adaptive Exoskeleton: 6++ for gaunts.
Bio-metallic Cysts: Improves AP of all Scything Talon weapons by one.

A couple Malanthropes and a Swarmlord, with other stratagems, you can have 90 Hgants in melee turn 2 if you went first, maybe easier if you went second and they came closer. I know it doesn't sound that good, but it really is when you think about 0 moral, and 120 6++/-1 running at you with 6" pile ins and consolidates. Especially when they are only 600pts, sand 1000 after the 3 HQ's, so you still can have Hive Guard, Warriors, and w/e you want.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah. I was really hoping for a more comprehensive reduction in falling back/penalty. For better or worse, players figured out Tri-pointing/wrapping which has kept melee sort of alive and masked the extent of the problem and made up for a bad core mechanic. I guarantee the rules writers didn’t intend for wrapping to be a mechanic or tactic. And unfortunately, being able to exploit that is now a “skill test” rather than a bug in the game to be fixed.

Wrapping/hostages is gone in 9th, you can just fall back through models. So there’s that. The only drawback that I know of is that fly units aren’t able to shoot after falling back anymore. Nobody is. Except with special rules, like Ultramarines, or all of Admech basically (Engine War). And as far as Ultramarines are concerned they won’t be legal more than a couple months anyway.

 Therion wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah. I was really hoping for a more comprehensive reduction in falling back/penalty. For better or worse, players figured out Tri-pointing/wrapping which has kept melee sort of alive and masked the extent of the problem and made up for a bad core mechanic. I guarantee the rules writers didn’t intend for wrapping to be a mechanic or tactic. And unfortunately, being able to exploit that is now a “skill test” rather than a bug in the game to be fixed.

Wrapping/hostages is gone in 9th, you can just fall back through models. So there’s that.

Up to your movement and all models must be able to be placed, so hordes can still lock in combat most likely.

My source also says overwatch is gone entirely, so, I think that will/would shock some people.

 Amishprn86 wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:



No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Yeah, falling back should definitely cost at least 1 CP. Also overwatch could cost 1 CP, it's another stupid thing that slows down the game and it was certainly better when it didn't exist.

I 100% agree with this.

If they're going to go this way, I agree. Falling back should cost a CP and so should overwatch (and I play Tau).
Although I would have much rather all three weren't stratagems in the first place.

 Therion wrote:
My source also says overwatch is gone entirely, so, I think that will/would shock some people.

Given PA was supposedly writen for 9th then why is their a strategums in Enginer war that says after you have fired overwatch do X? Thing your source might be wrong on this.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Therion wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
Yeah. I was really hoping for a more comprehensive reduction in falling back/penalty. For better or worse, players figured out Tri-pointing/wrapping which has kept melee sort of alive and masked the extent of the problem and made up for a bad core mechanic. I guarantee the rules writers didn’t intend for wrapping to be a mechanic or tactic. And unfortunately, being able to exploit that is now a “skill test” rather than a bug in the game to be fixed.

Wrapping/hostages is gone in 9th, you can just fall back through models. So there’s that.

Up to your movement and all models must be able to be placed, so hordes can still lock in combat most likely.

Unlikely in most cases, because you can do a wall from your own units to protect a gunline. Wrappers would have to completely surround your unit from every angle, and then it means you just pushed forward without any support.

But of course solo tanks screening the outside can get wrapped by acolyte blobs that punch them down a couple brackets, same as before.

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Overwatch wasn't in the game for many editions.

If GW wants melee gone, there are better ways.

Ice_can wrote:

 Therion wrote:
My source also says overwatch is gone entirely, so, I think that will/would shock some people.

Given PA was supposedly writen for 9th then why is their a strategums in Enginer war that says after you have fired overwatch do X? Thing your source might be wrong on this.

I’ve specifically asked about this, why the last PA still mention OW then, but answer was still the same. Maybe OW is some silly stratagem like the attack against fall back. Anyway he’s been right about everything so far.

Some stuff regarding charges will change too, like, you have to make it into engagement range of every unit you charged with the charge move, or you can’t move at all. So, multicharging is a bit risky. Have unit within 5 and 11? Charge both, roll 9, didn’t make it to either one. Anyway I can’t validate these rumors to you in any way because they are verbal so just wait and see.

Ice_can wrote:

 Therion wrote:
My source also says overwatch is gone entirely, so, I think that will/would shock some people.

Given PA was supposedly writen for 9th then why is their a strategums in Enginer war that says after you have fired overwatch do X? Thing your source might be wrong on this.

GW said PA books were done with 9th edition in mind. How can they make clandestine -1 to hit, shadeblade -1 to hit, and AL legion trait -1 to hit, when 9th only allows -1/+1 to hit ??

because gw is talking out of it's backside in order to look good.
It's nothing more then corporate speech, managed by the PR department, that much should be obvious from the leaked PDF alone.


And yes you can mark me as sceptical.

Curtesy Of the csm tactica.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Ice_can wrote:

 Therion wrote:
My source also says overwatch is gone entirely, so, I think that will/would shock some people.

Given PA was supposedly writen for 9th then why is their a strategums in Enginer war that says after you have fired overwatch do X? Thing your source might be wrong on this.

Didn't they also say that not everything from PA would make the cut when they redo any armies codex? There could easily be a few rules written with 8th in mind added to be cut fairly early into 9th.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Sounds like everything costs stratagems!

But yeah. Fall Back is this big boogeyman that really doesn't come up outside of competitive environments, in my experience. If people cannot understand that this stratagem is actually a fairly big deal? That's on them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

No, it should actually just cost a stratagem to fall back.

Cool, so Charging costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Fall Back has a penalty. It's not my problem that you chose to bumrush into the middle of a screen with all melee.

Cool, so shooting costs a stratagem too. Sounds fair to me!

Sounds like everything costs stratagems!

But yeah. Fall Back is this big boogeyman that really doesn't come up outside of competitive environments, in my experience. If people cannot understand that this stratagem is actually a fairly big deal? That's on them.

You're a bad player and you should actually feel ashamed for even spreading lies and bad evidence all around