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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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".

I hope so, otherwise the only way to do melee is going to be charges from point blank range, or running armies that do multiple charges per turn or who can multi charge without fail, which would require a very fast moving army.

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.

Don't worry, Marines will be able to.
"And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"

Karol 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.

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.

The concept is that your melee unit shouldn't be in front of the enemy in any case. It should be in the middle, on the objectives, where all those terrain elements are screening it and slaughtering on sight any enemy that wants the objective.

9th edition gives me a lot of Kill Team vibe in the way things are shaping up.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 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.

No matter how many times people say this, a unit being unable to Advance, Shoot (unless it has Fly), or Charge is not no downside. It may be insufficient downside from your perspective, but it is not no downside. Heck, forcing your opponent to move away from your unit can itself be a benefit if they have to leave an objective or otherwise good position on the field.

And we still don't know if Fallback hasn't been changed in some other manner.

On a podcast one of the playtesters alluded to the fact that Fall Back is more punitive in 9th and not something you want to do (or maybe even can do?). One of the rumors is that even units with fly can longer shoot when falling back which would explain why vehicles and monsters can now shoot in combat.

 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.

You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?

The last line makes me think this is the new counter to tripointing, not the new fallback mechanic. Nope, looking at it it's 100% designed to be a way around tripointing, not the new fallback mechanic in general. That's why you can move over enemy models.

For sure if you now tripoint a model with fly, he cannot shoot. The stratagem is quite adamant on that.

Karol 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.

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.

DE has Grotesques, wyches, Reavers, Talos, etc.. that do get played. Some people play 20+ Grotesques for example and them having 40mm bases in 10man units they can easily surround most things.

sweetbacon wrote:
On a podcast one of the playtesters alluded to the fact that Fall Back is more punitive in 9th and not something you want to do (or maybe even can do?). One of the rumors is that even units with fly can longer shoot when falling back which would explain why vehicles and monsters can now shoot in combat.

Was that FLG?

 p5freak 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.

You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?

Why would a knight ever use this? stompy feet do more damage than a lot of army's main guns against most things.

 p5freak 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.

You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?

He could also just stay in combat, shoot his non-blast weapons at the melee unit (and, if he wipes them, his blast weapons at something else) and then slaughter them in CC if they survive anyway.

 p5freak 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.

You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?

Knights can move through most models currently so the application is up in the air. Though I'm unsure why you'd Fallback with a knight when it can shoot into combat now?

Oops. Horse got beat to death.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

sweetbacon wrote:
On a podcast one of the playtesters alluded to the fact that Fall Back is more punitive in 9th and not something you want to do (or maybe even can do?). One of the rumors is that even units with fly can longer shoot when falling back which would explain why vehicles and monsters can now shoot in combat.

Was that FLG?

It was one of the podcasts on the FLG network. An interview with Brad Chester.

 alextroy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 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.

No matter how many times people say this, a unit being unable to Advance, Shoot (unless it has Fly), or Charge is not no downside. It may be insufficient downside from your perspective, but it is not no downside. Heck, forcing your opponent to move away from your unit can itself be a benefit if they have to leave an objective or otherwise good position on the field.

And we still don't know if Fallback hasn't been changed in some other manner.

And no matter how many times people say this they look at a unit in a vacuum.

Now the rest of the army can fire on that unit. No downside at all. All you have to do is nudge a unit away and point and click. This is not good game design.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

That is soul-crushingly awful.

Yep, GW looooooooves their shooty armies. I knew they wouldnt touch fallback. So i suppose its still just better to use my berserkers and flag carriers and point grappers in the new edition. ffs...

Well, it's better than just allowing fallback to ignore enemy models. I'm disappointed they just didn't get rid of tripiont completely.

 p5freak 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.

You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?

yes. I don't play imperial knights.

 p5freak 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.

You think its fine that an imperial knight dies on a roll of 1, when he is surrounded by non infantry units, and cant fall back normally ? He dies with the same chance as a T2 gretchin ?

The whole point of my post was that it is and should be a big penalty.

You are holding back 1cp for the command reroll right? In the extremely niche situation where you actually want to use this on Knight because you've been tri pointed by 3 tanks and dont want to stomp them for some reason I mean.

Interesting. Particularly that if you use this then you can do nothing else that turn even if you have a rule to allow you to shoot etc after falling back.

Also interesting that there is now a way to deliberately suicide a unit by making sure you end the move inside engagement range. I’m sure not all that helpful very often, but it does open up the possibility, especially if something explodes when it dies.

I agree with the others above that it looks like fallback is most probably still a thing and that this is specifically to give an answer to tripointing and blocking.

So how many core strats have been revealed now? They said there are 7 in 9th Ed IIRC, the original 3 from 8th (command reroll, Insane bravery and,counter-offensive) plus overwatch, cut them down and now desperate breakout.

That only leaves 1 more. Prepared positions might still be a thing, so that would be all 7.

 Brutallica wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

That is soul-crushingly awful.

Yep, GW looooooooves their shooty armies. I knew they wouldnt touch fallback. So i suppose its still just better to use my berserkers and flag carriers and point grappers in the new edition. ffs...

Looks like the 'Jump to Conclusions' board game is selling out.

Yeah we have no idea if the wording of Fall Back is changing. It may well be.

I just suspect it wont directly cause damage to the unit falling backer require a roll to succeed because neither of those make sense to me in context with this new strat.

But we really dont know beyond that kind of reasonable speculation.

This just makes wrapping even more important, because if you can wrap two units, they can't do anything about it.

Meanwhile it gives anyone in combat with an enemy unit a 2CP "just suicide this unit" strat. Not only can you ignore wrapping, you can ignore move-blocking too by just pulling the unit - you can use the strat and just pick up your unit even if it physically can't make a fall-back move because it's so surrounded it can't move without ending within 1" of an enemy model.

In other words, this does little to fix wrapping, and goes even further in the direction of falling back being something you do not to save your unit but to allow you to blast the opposing unit off the board with the rest of your army.

I've never understood people who complain about the "gaminess" of wrapping. Surely physically surrounding your enemy so they can't retreat is far, far, far less "gamey" than being able to simply withdraw from melee with no penalty while your opponent stands there twiddling his thumbs while he waits for you to blow him off the table with the rest of your army?

Very lame they teased this without clearing up what if any changes have been made to the base fall back rules. As is, this is a straight-up nerf to melee that amazingly ALSO manages to make wrapping even more a key part of the game...which is kinda the worst of both worlds.

This one smells like a removal of Falling Back as an *option* and a return of Falling Back as a consequence of a failed Leadership test.

IE, if your unit gets hammered and makes a LD test, it starts to fall back from the fight.

This strat looks like a way to volunteerly Fall Back, but at cost.

not 100% on that at this stage, but that's the vibe I'm pulling.

yukishiro1 wrote:
This just makes wrapping even more important, because if you can wrap two units, they can't do anything about it.

Meanwhile it gives anyone in combat with an enemy unit a 2CP "just suicide this unit" strat.

In other words, this does little to fix wrapping, and goes even further in the direction of falling back being something you do not to save your unit but to allow you to blast the opposing unit off the board with the rest of your army.

I've never understood people who complain about the "gaminess" of wrapping. Surely physically surrounding your enemy so they can't retreat is far, far, far less "gamey" than being able to simply withdraw from melee with no penalty while your opponent stands there twiddling his thumbs while he waits for you to blow him off the table with the rest of your army?

Very lame they teased this without clearing up what if any changes have been made to the base fall back rules. As is, this is a straight-up nerf to melee that amazingly ALSO manages to make wrapping even more a key part of the game...which is kinda the worst of both worlds.

Then let me clarify. Fallback is awful and shouldn't exist. But it does. The solution, however is WORSE than the disease. BA DC should NOT be able to charge in with the intention of causing minimal casualties. So it's not the tripoint itself as the setup for the tripoint.

The article (and stratagem) make it clear that Fall Back still exists (although no mention of whether this specific mechanic has changed)

The stratagem is literally to address tri-pointing, nothing else.

They could have just removed it. So much simpler.

The person who suggested having falling back happen at the end of the shooting phase but letting you do it through enemy units had the right idea, IMO. That makes falling back actually about saving your unit, not about suiciding your unit so the rest of your army can shoot.

This just makes the falling back interactions even gamier than they were before.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The person who suggested having falling back happen at the end of the shooting phase but letting you do it through enemy units had the right idea, IMO. That makes falling back actually about saving your unit, not about suiciding your unit so the rest of your army can shoot.

This just makes the falling back interactions even gamier than they were before.

Agreed. It's a gak fix. And I still have to feth around with tripointing to force people to use this strat. As I said, the only way to salvage this imo is to force chargers into CC if they rolled high enough.

If regular fall back is a 1 CP stratagem great.
If not... yeah. Sucks tbh.