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.

@ Yukishiro:

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.

The Cyclops is really small, like roughly 2 x 1'' small. I think it will fit often enough

@ P5freak:

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

Yes it cannot detonate its charge (which would be an autohit with 2D6 shots that have to go through the wounding and save sequence), but it can land within 1'', be destroyed and then roll for explosion causin D3 mortal wounds on a 3+.
As I said, 2CP are not cheap, but on the other hand just crossing through up to 10'' of models right into some expensive characters as long as there is any 2x1'' hole near them is... sometimes worth it, don't you think?

Edit: sorry, I realized the last line can be read in a pretty offensive tone. It is not meant that way but as a serious question. I ASSUME it might be worth it, but I lack experience and would be grateful for a second and third opinion.

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.

Hrm, I think in most cases, fall back after the shooting phase would render the mechanic pointless, mostly because if you have a counter-charge unit then you probably can reach them without needing your own dudes out of the way, and many armies simply won't have anything to countercharge with. Moving out of combat should be dangerous, the old Sweeping Advance mechanic was what killed most models in CC in previous editions as opposed to direct attacks, but I don't think moving Fall Back to after the shooting phase gives it any relevancy.

Ice_can wrote:

 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.

There's only one real codex in the game (inquisition, fallen, assassins etc aren't real codexes and don't count) without combat ability. And that's just because they made the melee options in that faction bad in 8th for no reason. There are a million ways you could address this single faction to fix the problem, e.g. either by improving their melee options or giving them all the 9th edition vehicle/monster rule that allows shooting in combat at a -1.

Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?

RAW they can "attempt" to fall back, and then you can stop them from doing it using any of the tricks for stopping units from falling back. So they then spent 2CP and removed models on 1s for no benefit. To the point where presumably nobody is going to do it unless it's a win-or-lose sort of situation.

So it just makes anti-fallback strats and rules even more powerful than they were previously.

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

You're going to make sure you have that CP when you need it?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?

There is no language that even suggests it trumps anti-fallback tech. It just allows them to move through models.

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?

I'm talking like 4th ed. Way back.

Martel732 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?

I'm talking like 4th ed. Way back.

Wasn't 3rd and 4th very much CC> shooting editions?
I remeber something about supercharged rhino rushes and choas being crazy but ut has been a lot of years.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?

I'm talking like 4th ed. Way back.

Wasn't 3rd and 4th very much CC> shooting editions?
I remeber something about supercharged rhino rushes and choas being crazy but ut has been a lot of years.

3rd yes. But by the end, starcannons ended that party. 4th ed was actually fairly balanced, but skimmers couldn't be charged at all. So maybe 4th was the beginning of the shooting dominance.

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

Because those editions were much more lethal than 8th despite what people think, they just happened to have some broken defense combos.

Getting in melee and past overwatch was extremely difficult, and the vehicles could not be put in melee.

8th edition is much more melee friendly than the last 3 editions.

I'm honestly thinking about making a Kroot army in 9th lol.

Spoletta wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

Because those editions were much more lethal than 8th despite what people think, they just happened to have some broken defense combos.

Getting in melee and past overwatch was extremely difficult, and the vehicles could not be put in melee.

8th edition is much more melee friendly than the last 3 editions.

Not sure I'd agree with that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

You're going to make sure you have that CP when you need it?

Something like this would have the most positive effect against single unit first turn charges, denying that early unit shutdown, so you're guaranteed to have that CP.

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Shooting dominated 5th-7th with no fallback mechanic.

Kroot used to be acceptable at HTH.

Kroot acceptable, if that's you standard of acceptable why where intercessors etc at codex 1.0 rules & points not acceptable?

I'm talking like 4th ed. Way back.

Wasn't 3rd and 4th very much CC> shooting editions?
I remeber something about supercharged rhino rushes and choas being crazy but ut has been a lot of years.

Aye, competitive 3rd and 4th were largely dominated by CC armies unless you had skimmers, and 5th was probably the most balanced between the two overall (with some codex issues slightly shifting in favor of shooting), and was probably the last time basic Tacs and CSMs could function genuinely well as generalist units.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'm honestly thinking about making a Kroot army in 9th lol.

Hey when you start rocking those wins at Major events people can't say you hid what you where planning.

Martel732 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?

There is no language that even suggests it trumps anti-fallback tech. It just allows them to move through models.

You sure about that? "Assuming that unit was not destroyed it can now attempt to fall back". Sounds like a get out of jail card. It does say "attempt" though, so there must be some kind of test to fall back now. Maybe wishful thinking on my part.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
What I want to know is does this strategem trump current anti-fallback strategems and abilities. If I play "We Have Come For You" and my opponent plays this, who wins?

There is no language that even suggests it trumps anti-fallback tech. It just allows them to move through models.

You sure about that? "Assuming that unit was not destroyed it can now attempt to fall back". Sounds like a get out of jail card. It does say "attempt" though, so there must be some kind of test to fall back now. Maybe wishful thinking on my part.

I'm grasping at those same straws. I'm hoping there is a mechanic to get away from combat (either movement modified roll off or LD based) and this is for the times units are locked not just engaged.

"Attempt" just means it can start to fall back, then if you have to roll to beat a wych or if the opponent wants to use a strat that prevents falling back on a 2+ or whatever they can do that.

I would like to think falling back will be nerfed further and it's possible it will be, but there's no reason to think so simply because of that strat, especially with the facebook page answering and saying "no, normal fall back is still around."

yukishiro1 wrote:
"Attempt" just means it can start to fall back, then if you have to roll to beat a wych or if the opponent wants to use a strat that prevents falling back on a 2+ or whatever they can do that.

I would like to think falling back will be nerfed further and it's possible it will be, but there's no reason to think so simply because of that strat, especially with the facebook page answering and saying "no, normal fall back is still around."

If you have another mechanic limiting fall back, there is nothing here that suggests those limitations don't apply.

Right, we're on the same page. There's no reason to read it otherwise.

This makes it possible to fall back from a trap. That's all it does. It says nothing one way or the other about how generic falling back is or is not changing, and it does nothing to limit anti-fall-back abilities that exist in the game already.

I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind- that isn't going to happen. But I am almost positive this is the new fallback.

Just like only one unit can overwatch per turn because it's a strat, now only one unit will be able to fall back per turn.

A lot of melee players don't like the strat because they don't think it goes far enough. I get where they're coming from, even though I don't share that opinion. But if it is limited by being a strat to saving one unit a turn, I think that, when added to all the other costs, would satisfy melee folks.

I could certainly be wrong. But this being the new fallback seems to me to fit most with types of changes we've already seen.

The good news is they will probably talk about it in the 40K Daily this week.

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's only one real codex in the game (inquisition, fallen, assassins etc aren't real codexes and don't count) without combat ability. And that's just because they made the melee options in that faction bad in 8th for no reason. There are a million ways you could address this single faction to fix the problem, e.g. either by improving their melee options or giving them all the 9th edition vehicle/monster rule that allows shooting in combat at a -1.

This.

I wish people would stop trying to make T'au just as generic as everyone else. I want my T'au to play like T'au, not like a weaker version of AM.

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind- that isn't going to happen. But I am almost positive this is the new fallback.

Just like only one unit can overwatch per turn because it's a strat, now only one unit will be able to fall back per turn.

A lot of melee players don't like the strat because they don't think it goes far enough. I get where they're coming from, even though I don't share that opinion. But if it is limited by being a strat to saving one unit a turn, I think that, when added to all the other costs, would satisfy melee folks.

I could certainly be wrong. But this being the new fallback seems to me to fit most with types of changes we've already seen.

The good news is they will probably talk about it in the 40K Daily this week.

This strat references <Fall Back>. This strongly implies there are other sources of fallback.

sanguine40k wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's only one real codex in the game (inquisition, fallen, assassins etc aren't real codexes and don't count) without combat ability. And that's just because they made the melee options in that faction bad in 8th for no reason. There are a million ways you could address this single faction to fix the problem, e.g. either by improving their melee options or giving them all the 9th edition vehicle/monster rule that allows shooting in combat at a -1.

This.

I wish people would stop trying to make T'au just as generic as everyone else. I want my T'au to play like T'au, not like a weaker version of AM.

There are plenty of cool unique ways they could alter Tau. Melee capable Auxiliaries make the most sense to me but it's far from thr only option.

They could add battlesuits that are designed to delay and disable melee units. Something like EMPs and Stun Guns etc that just debuff the unit attacking them. In a system where melee is difficult to escape from just stalemating key units while the guns deal with other threats has value. It would also require melee hravy forces to have shooting elements to remove the tech tarpit before you hit their lines. You could have units that instead of attacking in your combat phase instead fall back and drop debilitating mines/caltrops.

I'd prefer that as a Tau player instead of being completely at the mercy of what every new edition tries in the shooting/melee dynamic. It's also probably a Millstone around the neck of the design team anytime anything to improve the balance between melee and shooting is presented. What about Tau? is quite possibly holding the entire engine up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
I'm not here to try and change anyone's mind- that isn't going to happen. But I am almost positive this is the new fallback.

Just like only one unit can overwatch per turn because it's a strat, now only one unit will be able to fall back per turn.

A lot of melee players don't like the strat because they don't think it goes far enough. I get where they're coming from, even though I don't share that opinion. But if it is limited by being a strat to saving one unit a turn, I think that, when added to all the other costs, would satisfy melee folks.

I could certainly be wrong. But this being the new fallback seems to me to fit most with types of changes we've already seen.

The good news is they will probably talk about it in the 40K Daily this week.

This strat references <Fall Back>. This strongly implies there are other sources of fallback.

But in the same way Overwatch is a Strat that will have certain other natural sources perhaps Fall Back is similarly given to units that traditionally had Hit and Run/ known for their speed/ability to fly etc.

Maybe. I wouldn't count on it, though.

 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.

Which makes it all the more confusing to me. Why create a stratagem to combat something that isn't widely known or used by the 40k player base?

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."

I think a lot of people would even be fine with Fallback allowing you to move through enemy units if it happened at the end of the shooting phase. Anything that stops assault units from being stranded in the open and shot off the table.

"Which makes it all the more confusing to me. Why create a stratagem to combat something that isn't widely known or used by the 40k player base?"

Because the competitive guys helped them make this I guess.