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.

Wierd, a Core strat just to counter tripointing? Strange...

Well it’s not entirely surprising considering the other changes they made. My Tyranids approve this rule.

Am I right in thinking we don't know yet if you can normally retreat from combat? (I assume you can)

This is very interesting...

That's for Falling Back when you're surrounded or tripointed. The strat makes clear that it's NOT normal Fall Back.

Umbros wrote:

Am I right in thinking we don't know yet if you can normally retreat from combat?

This is very interesting...

The wording implies normal falling back still exists.

Though of course the details of that may have changed too.

The fact this stratagem says after checking if anyone dies you then perform a Fall Back implies that a normal Fall Back is safe to me, otherwise you would be potentially losing models twice when using this strat and that seems extremely unlikely to me.

So I believe Falling Back is more or less same as 8e, and this strat specifically to give an option when tri pointed or similarly blocked.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That's for Falling Back when you're surrounded or tripointed. The strat makes clear that it's NOT normal Fall Back.

Regular Fallback for 1 CP?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
That's for Falling Back when you're surrounded or tripointed. The strat makes clear that it's NOT normal Fall Back.

Regular Fallback for 1 CP?

Hah!

I cant see it being a strat, because this strat refers to it as a type of move still.

 Stux wrote:
So I believe Falling Back is more or less same as 8e...

That is soul-crushingly awful.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
That's for Falling Back when you're surrounded or tripointed. The strat makes clear that it's NOT normal Fall Back.

Regular Fallback for 1 CP?

If I had to guess, regular Fall Back is still free, and melee is still fethed.

That being said, we don't know for sure-it's fully possible you're right.

I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.

sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.

Karol wrote:
I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.

sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.

A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?

I think that's fine tbh.

 Stux wrote:

Karol wrote:
I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.

sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.

A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?

I think that's fine tbh.

Not really. The issue with melee isn't killing the chaff you run into, it's getting blown to bits by the gunline that has free shots on you after the chaff falls back.

The existence of this strat makes me way less hopefully that regular falling back has been limited. :/
This would make the "opponents fight first" a lot less interesting, as falling back is almost always what you want to do during your turn.

I think its fine, will be rarely used but always there, has a heavy enough cost (not just CP but risk of your own units to prevent it from being used on everything). You for sure won't use it on MCs, Tanks, etc.. as often b.c a roll of 1 means a large model is destroyed.

This definitely makes it appear that Fall Back is still a normal action a unit can perform.

It appears GW isn't big on units taking hostages. They must have found it gamey, but have provided an out for the player rather than writing it out of the rules entirely.

Yes, you opponent can runaway even if you tripoint them, assuming they have 2 CP available and are willing to spend it on that. If you think that is the case, maybe you should concentrate on destroying the enemy unit rather than playing paddy cake with it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Karol wrote:
I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.

sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.

A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?

I think that's fine tbh.

Not really. The issue with melee isn't killing the chaff you run into, it's getting blown to bits by the gunline that has free shots on you after the chaff falls back.

I think it's a fine tool to exist to prevent tri pointing. Because theres no counter play to it otherwise and it's just not fun.

That said, I do agree that there should ALSO be more of a draw back or barrier to regular Fall Back.

 McGibs wrote:
The existence of this strat makes me way less hopefully that regular falling back has been limited. :/
This would make the "opponents fight first" a lot less interesting, as falling back is almost always what you want to do during your turn.

The opponents fight first is what makes me think Fallback is limited, but I base that on absolutely nothing.

Interesting sidenote: that means you can now detonate your (Artemia) Hellhounds, Malcador Infernus, Valdor Tank Hunter etc. a bit easier as you can fall back into engagement range of something, die and then explode on a 4+ (or 2+ for the Valdor)

Pretty expensive for 2CP and not guaranteed, but the ability to move through models together with 12'' fall back could bring you through a screen and into the backline now and then

That's fair.

IIRC the wording for the Overwatch strat basically said 'use this strat to fire Overwatch', so it's still possible that Fall Back is only usable when either this stratagem or a presumed 1CP generic fall back stratagem is used.

Fallback is still definitely a thing and at this point it is better like that.

If fallback had really become a stratagem, together with all the previous changes I think that the pendulum would have swung too far.

Now the only pieces left to know are morale rules and point costs, then we have the full picture.

Oh and strategic reserves too.

And being blasted off the table, because your opponent always can avoid melee, which means every melee unit has to deal with the fact that it maybe eating the fire power of an entire army to the face is considered fun?

 alextroy wrote:

It appears GW isn't big on units taking hostages. They must have found it gamey, but have provided an out for the player rather than writing it out of the rules entirely.

And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?

There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.

It seems the community is set to explode one way or the other when the real Fallback pops up.

Will the real Fallback please stand up?

 catbarf wrote:
IIRC the wording for the Overwatch strat basically said 'use this strat to fire Overwatch', so it's still possible that Fall Back is only usable when either this stratagem or a presumed 1CP generic fall back stratagem is used.

Maybe, but it seems unlikely. Why write a core rule that only applies when specific stratagems are used?

I dunno, I cant see it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

And disengaging from a unit that finally made it into HTH for literally no downside isn't?

There are certain things that are safer in HTH than out of it, this was a valid tactic for years yet GW feels that being able to walk away and have the rest of your army blow that unit away is fine. Yeah, no.

That tanks can shoot into combat just makes me think of them saying, "ok no free Fallback, but you can do this".

 Stux wrote:

Karol wrote:
I hope that everyone gets a cancel opponents stratagem then. Because this hurts armies with just one melee unit a lot.

sucks for those armies that got a rule or stratagem that stops people from fleeing melee, because it looks like a straight up counter to those.

A counter that kills 1/6 of your own models and costs 2cp?

I think that's fine tbh.

I can't think of a single army right now, that likes the idea of having their main melee units sitting in the open, in front of the opposing army, just because your opponent paid 2CP, and you can not do a thing about it, aside if you are a DE player and use the cancel stratagems. I am just not sure how interested in melee armies are, all I have seen, and I don't claim I have seen all varid versions of DE armies, seemed to be rather shoting focused.

At most, I can see the fallback penalty be increased. Going by that strategem for example a falling back unit could be unable to manifest powers in addition to no fighting and no shooting.

Spoletta wrote:
At most, I can see the fallback penalty be increased. Going by that strategem for example a falling back unit could be unable to manifest powers in addition to no fighting and no shooting.

Which doesn't mean much as it's the rest of the army blasting the assault unit to pieces that's the issue.

 Stux wrote:
Maybe, but it seems unlikely. Why write a core rule that only applies when specific stratagems are used?

They've already said that the Overwatch strat isn't the only way that the Overwatch rule could be used.