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.

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.

The warhammer 40k facebook team said it wasn't the only fall back, it was in addition to the normal fall back.

If they were wrong and it is the only way to fall back, I certainly would not be complaining that it doesn't go far enough.

yukishiro1 wrote:

The warhammer 40k facebook team said it wasn't the only fall back, it was in addition to the normal fall back.

1) I dont for a moment trust the Facebook team to accurately clarify a rule, that hasnt even been revealed yet, in a free text reply on the internet. They get things wrong *all* the damn time.

2) Citation needed. This is at least the second post where you've made this claim, and I think everyone here would like to see what the actual statement was, not just your description of said statement.

The way this strat is worded, there's no way it's the main source of falling back. If it was the same line as overwatch, surely the strat would be called "Fall Back".

I'm still holding out hope that there's some cost to regular falling back, like a roll off or stat check or SOMETHING. Everything they've changed with vehicles shooting in combat and opponents fighting first really only shines if the mechanics for fallback are changed to have a downside (that's more than the unit falling back not being able to shoot. that's not a downside.)

Hence why I allowed for the possibility that they were wrong.

If you want a link just ask, there's no need to be snippy about it.

Here's a copy of the screenshot someone else posted on the other thread:



This statement makes no sense if it's the only way to fall back. Again, it's the facebook team, they're not always right. Which is why I presented it with a caveat.

I do like that they dodged the "assume you can still fall back normally" sidequestion in there. Gives me some hope.

I salute your optimism, and hope you are right.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I salute your optimism, and hope you are right.

We should probably temper our expectations.

Even if free Fallback isnt going away it wont ruin our lives and there are other avenues to balance.

What would those be?

Martel732 wrote:
What would those be?

If the Cultist price isn't an outlier, then a non-negligible price increase to chaff units will reduce the amount of screens we see. That will make it easier for light shooting support to clear screens for the melee units.

 catbarf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What would those be?

If the Cultist price isn't an outlier, then a non-negligible price increase to chaff units will reduce the amount of screens we see. That will make it easier for light shooting support to clear screens for the melee units.

Not if they get cheaper in large numbers ala AoS.

My worry is that turns melee into a one use only attack that requires crossing the table to activate.

*Assuming automatic, penalty light fall back remains.

 Eldarain wrote:
My worry is that turns melee into a one use only attack that requires crossing the table to activate.

*Assuming automatic, penalty light fall back remains.

Crossing a table with the new blast rules.

Martel732 wrote:
What would those be?

Point differentials of
- infantry vs vehicles.
- man-portable and vehicle weapons now that the latter can move, shoot, and shoot into combat without much hindrance.
- melee & CQC vs long range weapons

and

- Modes of scoring for primary and secondary missions
- Actions and their prevalence
- Changes to list building dynamics (this can go either way)
- a reset of Forgeworld
- Day 0 FAQ & Errata
- Changes to morale

and for unlikely items...

- Changes to auras
- Interactions in the command phase

Kind of like...waiting for all the info and then making a judgement.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Kind of like...waiting for all the info and then making a judgement.

Seems like an alien concept, dunno if we could handle it. /s

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Kind of like...waiting for all the info and then making a judgement.

Emperor forbid we discuss the information we have already though...

I am surprised each morning when the 40k forums aren't locked pending the full edition release, or was it when the codexes are released, or was it the new CA?

I always forget what we're supposed to wait for to see the full design paradigm (because that never changes course drastically mid edition...)

Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Emperor forbid we discuss the information we have already though...

That's a weird way to type complaining.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.

The start of 4th was pretty nice.

Csm had the 3.5 codex.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.

There's been two dynamics - before 8th the release pace was sloooooooooooow. You could see their though process roll out a quarter at a time. When flyers came out they eventually made adjustments here and there, but then they dropped a whole new idea and started the clock all over again.

With 8th it was the first time in a while they really tried to set the field. They responded pretty well, but it was clear they didn't finish thinking about where they wanted to take the edition before 8th hit. The codex release schedule was stupid fast (it needed to be) and there's no way they had enough testing to keep it all straight. On top of that they were planning this edition.

If there were any period where they could "get it right" it'd be this one, but did they spend enough time testing all the kinks out of this one? I doubt it. Its impossible, but it will more than likely be a step forward rather than backward - as long as they stay involved.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.

There's been two dynamics - before 8th the release pace was sloooooooooooow. You could see their though process roll out a quarter at a time. When flyers came out they eventually made adjustments here and there, but then they dropped a whole new idea and started the clock all over again.

With 8th it was the first time in a while they really tried to set the field. They responded pretty well, but it was clear they didn't finish thinking about where they wanted to take the edition before 8th hit. The codex release schedule was stupid fast (it needed to be) and there's no way they had enough testing to keep it all straight. On top of that they were planning this edition.

If there were any period where they could "get it right" it'd be this one, but did they spend enough time testing all the kinks out of this one? I doubt it. Its impossible, but it will more than likely be a step forward rather than backward - as long as they stay involved.

I think their engagement with the community and closed playtesters really does speak volumes as to the length and degree they are trying to make sure this game lands well. I personally think that 8th is a great step forward from 6th and 7th (which seemingly drove people away by the bushel) and i think they have a great skeleton to build the game from.

Ultimately, I think that taking the best parts of popular game modes, like ITC and ETC, as well as the feedback from the competitive player base also speaks volumes as to their want to get this right. Lastly, all of the above is a HUGE amount of money to put into a release of an edition for this game that is based on the rules release and not other factors like models and new boxes (though certainly, that is a huge cost factor).

Basically, they may have always done these things, and I never knew, but this is the first time I have heard of, or at least seen it publicly announced and driven, that GW has invested this much money into the "game" and not into more models and new ways to sell them. I think that really does speak volumes to me, and I'm going to remain optimistic.

As a melee centric player (I own a lot of armies, but my favorites are WE, Demons, BA, Tyranids, and SW) and I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech. Fun games are close, dynamic, and exciting. That's one of the things I look forward to when playing!

The biggest question I think, ultimately, that melee is concerned with is the new fallback mechanic. If it's good, and there are some tests that's required, I think it'll make the degree of efficacy between the two competing ideologies pretty narrow, and ultimately that's what we all want. If it's just fall back and get blasted, I have concerns, but without seeing all of the rules, its all conjecture at this point.

I know this is largely heresy here, but i have some faith this is going to work out fine. I dont think 9th will be the penultimate tabletop miniatures game existing, but so far everything i have seen has made me pretty optimistic that this game will be pretty damn good, and help narrow the gap between balanced armies and "single phase active" armies.

Seabass wrote:
I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.

Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.

If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.

Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.

If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.

With the difference that there are heavy ranged armies (Guard) and ranged only armies (Tau, with no psychic phase on top of that), while there are basically no melee only armies (just a couple of subfactions).
Melee heavy armies still have ranged options.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

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+.

Destroyed isnt the same as reduced to 0 wounds. Therefore it doesnt explode.

 Aenar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Seabass wrote:
I WANT melee to be strong in 9th edition because i want the game to be a bit better balanced between the two prevailing concepts of how to play. But that doesn't mean I want it to be broken. I want my opponents to play a tau army to feel like they have an equal chance against my space wolves or Tyranids as they would against my Ad Mech.

Yes, very much this. I play Thousand Sons. I have a good mix of stuff that really likes melee and stuff that really does not. I couldn't tell you if killing Fallback will balance the game. For all I know it could totally ruin T'au - and let's face it - Auxiliaries aren't coming around any time soon. Would it make melee good? Absolutely? Does melee need it to be successful in 9th? I don't know yet.

If Fallback goes away...people with heavy ranged armies will lose their damned minds.
If it doesn't go away...people with heavy melee armies will lose their damned minds.

With the difference that there are heavy ranged armies (Guard) and ranged only armies (Tau, with no psychic phase on top of that), while there are basically no melee only armies (just a couple of subfactions).
Melee heavy armies still have ranged options.

Well, I'd say Tau have more CC capabilities than my Nurgle Daemons have shooting options.

Guard has functional melee, certainly as good as any shooting that chaos daemons or harlequins have.

Tau is really the only faction with no viable melee options, and that's not even historically how they used to be.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:


Well, I'd say Tau have more CC capabilities than my Nurgle Daemons have shooting options.

Right - there's a really complex layer of considerations to be made. People that get their pants in a twist about whatever gets revealed need to moderate their misery a bit until all the rules are out.

But of course that won't happen.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Has there ever been an edition of 40k that wasn't a bit of a hot mess at release? Honest question, not being snarky, I haven't been around for most of them, I took a big break for about 15 years and returned for 8th.

The start of 4th was pretty nice.

Csm had the 3.5 codex.

4th was great. CSM kept their 3.5 book until about 2 months before 5th ed too, iirc.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, I'd say Tau have more CC capabilities than my Nurgle Daemons have shooting options.

Still, Nurgle Daemons have psychic powers and can be played with a large set of models (chaos), while Tau are shooting only and can ally with literally no one. That's bad game design for sure, but it's what we have now.

Tau having a ridiculous stunted design shouldn't hold back the game's core rules.