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 won't be. The last stratagem is likely prepared positions.

The fact that this Stratagem:
-Costs 2CP
-Kills 1/6 of your own models
-Prevents that unit from doing anything else later in the turn

Convinces me that regular Fall Back is definitely getting nerfed in some way. If Fall Back were being kept as unrestricted as it currently is, this would have been a 1CP stratagem, or wouldn't have so many harsh downsides.

I suspect fallback will be the same. We'll know soon.

Martel732 wrote:
It won't be. The last stratagem is likely prepared positions.

Or prepared positions is just automatic now that everyone has the same CP?

I guess maybe. I just get the feeling that fallback is unchanged, and this strat is their "fix" for tripoint.

 catbarf wrote:
The fact that this Stratagem:
-Costs 2CP
-Kills 1/6 of your own models
-Prevents that unit from doing anything else later in the turn

Convinces me that regular Fall Back is definitely getting nerfed in some way. If Fall Back were being kept as unrestricted as it currently is, this would have been a 1CP stratagem, or wouldn't have so many harsh downsides.

I dunno, this seems like it could be just an anti-tripoint move. Although if there are changes to Fall Back I hope it doesn't change my UM CT too much.

 catbarf wrote:
The fact that this Stratagem:
-Costs 2CP
-Kills 1/6 of your own models
-Prevents that unit from doing anything else later in the turn

Convinces me that regular Fall Back is definitely getting nerfed in some way. If Fall Back were being kept as unrestricted as it currently is, this would have been a 1CP stratagem, or wouldn't have so many harsh downsides.

I don't know. In many cases as a shooting army if you enemy has tri-pointed one of your screens thats nearly and auto loss. I don't care if all the unit is wiped out, I just want to shoot at whats tri-pointing it. The bigger downside is the 2CP cost. With less CP, and most tri-pointing happening on turn 2 or 3, making your opponent spend 2 CP is a worth investment.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

As I said, not enough downside in your opinion.

The big differences between 8th Edition Fall Back and 3-7th Edition is that before you had to fail a Morale check to Fall Back and there was a chance you could lose the unit (unless it was a Space Marine). Now you get to make the decision as the general and there is no chance the unit dies.

Player agency is good game design. So your the complaint isn't about bad game design. it's about wanting to have your close combat unit be able to hide from guns by engaging in close combat while your opponent sits there without being able to reply.

So now we wait to see if GW made any alterations to the Fall Back rules that provide further penalty and thus increase the 'difficulty' of the decision.

sweetbacon wrote:

 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.

Hmm. It really was a passing comment and it's hard to parse anything from it.

Just after 5 minute mark here for anyone else:
https://player.fm/series/frontline-gaming-network/ep-40k-today-weekly-roundup-for-jun-15-through-jun-19

I don't think this is the "New Fall Back". Given GW's general rules design philosophies not wanting to get into such micropositioning detail, the way the strat is written, the existence of the "Cut Them Down" strat and its implications, and GW's typical desire to fix rules with more rules, I'm thinking Fall Back remains unchanged and that they never really initially intended tripointing, 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, particularly given how much they like to add new rules to fix problems with other rules.

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.

This man is right. Units with fly, for example, can’t shoot after falling back. Unless some special rule/stratagem specifically allows them to.

I think this is a good Strategem. It's a pretty big cost to pay. I like that the cost actually scales with how valuable the falling-back unit is. You get something more valuable than chaff surrounded and you've got a deadly choice.

On Fall Back changes in general:
I bet there's some kinda of change on the way...but if they got rid of it or nerfed it to the ground it will only exacerbate the keep-away game. Part of the "problem" of melee is the all-or-nothing nature of it. If a shooting army has no option but to die when a unit gets tagged the game becomes about avoiding combat at all costs.
With the overwatch and cover changes it's already getting much more difficult for a shooting army to stay on an objective in the face of a melee threat, for instance. That's fine but, all stacked up, you can go too far.

There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.

Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.

But I still have to take the time to force you to do this.

Given how poorly known, understood, and utilized Tripointing and other such things are by the community at large, particularly outside the competition oriented crowd, I'm going to be unsurprised when a huge chunk of the playerbase doesn't actually get what this stratagem does or only find it to be only useful in rare exceptions, while some elements of the competitive crowd may find themselves utilizing it almost every turn.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Given how poorly known, understood, and utilized Tripointing and other such things are by the community at large, particularly outside the competition oriented crowd, I'm going to be unsurprised when a huge chunk of the playerbase doesn't actually get what this stratagem does or only find it to be only useful in rare exceptions, while some elements of the competitive crowd may find themselves utilizing it almost every turn.

This may be my playgroup
I've never seen tripointing work but I've also never had problems of too many units getting wiped in shooting (unless against some specific Tau build).

Yup. This is why I'm surprised they chose this route.

Martel732 wrote:
But I still have to take the time to force you to do this.

Exactly. It's the worst of all possible worlds. Preserves all the tedium, while diminishing the reward, but still keeping the reward high enough that you have to go through the tedium.

And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.

Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.

The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.

Well, but you'd still need to be able to end the move in the new spot - in other words, if you can't end the move except on top of other models, you'd presumably be destroyed at your original point, not at the point where you finish a move you can't actually make.

The model is only destroyed in the post-move position if it can make that move, but ends within 1" of something.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.

Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.

The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.

It would save your unit from dying. In other words, the whole reason a unit should be falling back.

"Hey guys, we need to move backwards even if it kills us so the rest of our army can shoot these guys" said nobody, ever.

The whole way fall back is implemented in 40k is nonsensical. The point of falling back should be so your unit survives, not to open up the enemy to shooting.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.

And then what ? Your demolition vehicle cant do anything else for the rest of the turn. It cant explode.

Making my point no one would ever fall back, screening just becomes mandatory and will be even more essential.

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.

Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.

The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.

Perfectly sums up why adding it in 8th was terrible. You would fall back because your unit is outmatched and it will prevent their immediate slaughter.

Ideally you would charge in a unit of your own better suited to combating them in melee. Encouraging list building that skews all in on shooting is a huge part of why lethality is out of control.

*I also think melee movement should be drastically reduced in a world where easy mode escape and point click gameplay is reigned in.

** Mono phase armies should go away. Let's see more of the Tau Empire that can swing a stick.

 Eldarain wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no choice. You pay your 2CP, take your losses, and shoot the assault unit off the table.

Yep. This is the problem with falling back being done before the shooting phase. There is no way to balance it to be a real choice, it's always better to pay 2CP, pick up all your models if necessary, and then get to shoot whatever you were in combat with off the table.

The issue is why would you do it after the shooting phase as you would gain what exactly?
I can tell you now the answer is nothing so it would esentially cease to be a rule.

Perfectly sums up why adding it in 8th was terrible. You would fall back because your unit is outmatched and it will prevent their immediate slaughter.

Ideally you would charge in a unit of your own better suited to combating them in melee. Encouraging list building that skews sll in on shooting is a huge part of why lethality is out of control.

*I also think melee movement should be drastically reduced in a world where easy mode escape and point click gameplay is reigned in.

** Mono phase armies should go away. Let's see more of the Tau Empire that can swing a stick.

Yeah lets go back to the tarpit lists and taking shooting units being a complete waste of time, we had that in previous editions and guess what no-one ever falls back ever.

 p5freak wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
And as mentioned above: it could be pretty useful to get suicide units through screens near juicy targets. I'm not sure if it is worth 2 CP, but getting a Cyclops demolition vehicle THROUGH 10'' of enemy models and likely self destroy it there (D3 mortal wounds for every unit within 6'' on a 3+) might in some situation be pretty awesome. Especially when you can bring it right in the middle of a carefully arranged group of buff characters.

And then what ? Your demolition vehicle cant do anything else for the rest of the turn. It cant explode.

If you could move it to somewhere that it was within 1" of an enemy, it would be destroyed at that point, meaning you'd get to roll for exploding. Unless you think exploding is "doing something under that rule," I guess - though that seems unlikely given that exploding is something that happens automatically.

Ice_can wrote:
Yeah lets go back to the tarpit lists and taking shooting units being a complete waste of time, we had that in previous editions and guess what no-one ever falls back ever.

Did you not see shooting in 7th? I saw plenty of it.

If falling back happened at the end of the shooting phase, what it would encourage is combined-arms lists with shooting and melee components; you would fall back to make room for your counter-charge to charge the enemy, which is a lot more thematic than "ok guys let's calmly walk backwards while those orks just stand there, so the rest of the army can blow them to smithereens since they are rooted to the ground and unable to move while we move."

The result would be armies that function in multiple phases. If it made gunlines with zero combat ability become non-competitive, that's 100% fine with me. One-phase armies are bad to play and bad to play against.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Yeah lets go back to the tarpit lists and taking shooting units being a complete waste of time, we had that in previous editions and guess what no-one ever falls back ever.

Did you not see shooting in 7th? I saw plenty of it.

I'm going back to even earlier editions.

8th edition has melee at a significant disadvantage, but you don't solve the problem with them being at a disadvantage by upending the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If falling back happened at the end of the shooting phase, what it would encourage is combined-arms lists with shooting and melee components; you would fall back to make room for your counter-charge to charge the enemy, which is a lot more thematic than "ok guys let's calmly walk backwards while those orks just stand there, so the rest of the army can blow them to smithereens since they are rooted to the ground and unable to move while we move."

The result would be armies that function in multiple phases. If it made gunlines with zero combat ability become non-competitive, that's 100% fine with me. One-phase armies are bad to play and bad to play against.

Except thatdoesnt work when GW has designed codex's without combat ability.