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.

A rules proposal to change Fall Back;

Units can attempt to pursue enemy units attempting to Fall Back. Both players roll off when a unit that is attempting to Fall Back is pursued. If the pursuing players' score is equal or higher [or the advantage could go to the falling back unit if this is too much of a detriment] the unit attempting to Fall Back is caught. Roll a D6 for a unit that has been caught, on a 1 nothing, on a 2-6 it suffers D3 mortal wounds [I might change or remove this extra damage entirely for initial play-testing]. If a pursuing unit is caught, both units stay in place. If a unit is not caught it may move its movement distance with the normal restrictions.

Additional rules change; 'Tank' (non-flyer, non-walker) units may still fire at a reduced BS [hit on 6's] if within 1" of an enemy.

Would this work?

---Edit---
Updated to incorporate additional feedback.

Not really a need, if a unit disengages, they're not making attacks and unless they pull some shenanigans, the attacking unit is just going to charge them again.

 Stormonu wrote:
Not really a need, if a unit disengages, they're not making attacks and unless they pull some shenanigans, the attacking unit is just going to charge them again.

I think you miss the point of being engaged in combat in the enemy turn. The Fall Back disadvantage of one unit not being able to advance/shoot/charge is outweighed significantly by the rest of the army being able to shoot at a melee threat that would have otherwise been non-targetable.

Not to mention that Eldar Jetbike armies effectively ignore this penalty, as do Guardsmen with Get Back In the Fight. Even then, cheaper throwaway MSU units don't lose as much from a firepower perspective compared to the battleshock that can pile up from focusing a larger unit down.

I like the idea of melee attacks of opportunity, NOT only for stuff like falling back, but for any conceivable "attack-on-the-move" abilities that could also be a thing.

There are quite a few units that ignore some or all of the penalty for Falling Back (Harlequins), considering how many models have Fly.

From what I've seen there are only a few units that disallow a Fall Back; Skarbrand, Fiends of Slaanesh, Wyches (on a 4+). But I've not gone through all the profiles of all army yet.

Mchaagen wrote:
I haven't been able to fully accept how units can freely disengage while opposing units simply watch it happen.

I think of it this way; the models that died in the last CC phase (or morale phase) heroically held back the enemy while everybody else legged it.

This seems like it would throw off the balance of CC vs shooting pretty badly. Now, maybe your group feels that CC is very underpowered and needs the help, but this is pretty extreme. The ability to disengage at will means that strong CC units don't fight on your opponent's turn unless he wants them to, and that CC units are often exposed to the rest of the enemy army's fire on the turn after they charge.

Dionysodorus wrote:
This seems like it would throw off the balance of CC vs shooting pretty badly. Now, maybe your group feels that CC is very underpowered and needs the help, but this is pretty extreme. The ability to disengage at will means that strong CC units don't fight on your opponent's turn unless he wants them to, and that CC units are often exposed to the rest of the enemy army's fire on the turn after they charge.

How is this extreme? In 7th very few people claimed it was a close combat edition and units could be tied up indefinitely. Now Fall Back is in the game, close combat is deemed too powerful if units cannot run at will whenever they are engaged?

I like the option of falling back, but it shouldn't be automatic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 John Prins wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:
I haven't been able to fully accept how units can freely disengage while opposing units simply watch it happen.

I think of it this way; the models that died in the last CC phase (or morale phase) heroically held back the enemy while everybody else legged it.

Background can be used to equally explain why units fleeing from close combat would get run down.

The point is, we shouldn't be looking at this from a background perspective but rather a gameplay/balance perspective.

Is Fall Back balanced? I don't think so, and the game I played thus far (I know it's only one..) showed it wasn't. Even without playing any games that's the impression I got from reading the rule, and I've seen very little evidence to change that opinion.

Mchaagen wrote:

How is this extreme? In 7th very few people claimed it was a close combat edition and units could be tied up indefinitely. Now Fall Back is in the game, close combat is deemed too powerful if units cannot run at will whenever they are engaged?

I like the option of falling back, but it shouldn't be automatic.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. I'm pointing out something that seems pretty obvious. To reiterate: What you're suggesting is a big buff to CC units. Therefore it makes close combat better relative to shooting. Let's assume that units in 8th were given point costs that make them roughly balanced given the 8th edition rules, rather than the 7th edition rules. Then your proposed change is very likely to make CC units too good. But maybe you think that CC units are very weak now. That's fine! I'm not taking a position on that. In that case your change might make the game more balanced.

Is that clearer? I really can't tell if you're trying to argue that CC is too weak now (which wasn't something I was arguing against) or that your change isn't a big buff to CC.

If the latter, come on. You're proposing to make it both pretty unlikely to successfully fall back and pretty punishing if you try and fail. If units don't fall back, then CC units -- especially fast CC units -- don't get shot nearly as much. That's a really big deal. That's how you're supposed to defend against a flying circus, by screening and then falling back so the rest of your army can shoot. Yes, you couldn't choose to fall back in 7th. But 7th had different point costs for things and a bunch of other different rules, so I don't understand why that's relevant.

Edit: Okay, your edit makes clear that your concern here is not that falling back seems silly to you but that it seems way too powerful. Then, fine, nerf the hell out of it. I was confused because I thought I made clear in my first post that maybe your group really did think that CC needed a huge buff. I disagree, but I haven't been and am not interested in arguing about that.

 John Prins wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:
I haven't been able to fully accept how units can freely disengage while opposing units simply watch it happen.

I think of it this way; the models that died in the last CC phase (or morale phase) heroically held back the enemy while everybody else legged it.

Great way of looking at it. Thematic scenes are important in my games.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Edit: Okay, your edit makes clear that your concern here is not that falling back seems silly to you but that it seems way too powerful. Then, fine, nerf the hell out of it. I was confused because I thought I made clear in my first post that maybe your group really did think that CC needed a huge buff. I disagree, but I haven't been and am not interested in arguing about that.

My issue is that a melee unit that does finally get engaged into combat loses the ability to stay engaged without any option to prevent it, that seems broken.

...pretty unlikely to successfully fall back and pretty punishing if you try and fail.

Pretty unlikely is misleading, my suggestion is a tie goes to the pursuer. Pretty punishing, not sure, it depends on the unit. But if those are what you are concerned about why not suggest a less-punishing alternative instead of claiming the entire idea itself is too punishing to be plausible.

Yes, you couldn't choose to fall back in 7th. But 7th had different point costs for things and a bunch of other different rules, so I don't understand why that's relevant.

It's relevant because 7th was mostly a shooting-orientated edition, 8th is also a mostly shooting-orientated edition. Shooting was fine without Fall Back. So what I'm claiming is changing it will not be a significant slide that alters the 'balance' between shooting and close combat.

If, and this is a big IF, you needed something to happen when falling back so that people cannot leave freely it should be this.

Each side rolls a d6 and adds their M attribute. If the falling back units total is equal to or higher then their opponent then nothing happens. If the opponents roll is higher then the falling back unit suffers a number of mortal wounds equal to the difference.

So don't have necron warriors fall back from a flyrant. 5+d6 vs 16+d6 will not work out in their favor.

 Lance845 wrote:
If, and this is a big IF, you needed something to happen when falling back so that people cannot leave freely it should be this.

Each side rolls a d6 and adds their M attribute. If the falling back units total is equal to or higher then their opponent then nothing happens. If the opponents roll is higher then the falling back unit suffers a number of mortal wounds equal to the difference.

So don't have necron warriors fall back from a flyrant. 5+d6 vs 16+d6 will not work out in their favor.

This type of rule would reward fast movement even more, which is already too good in many aspects of the game.

I'm also not sure how this solves the problem of not being able to remain in close combat, this is just wounds for units fleeing. I wouldn't even mind removing or toning down the mortal wounds in my original proposal.

The problem with deleting falling back is that fast units can already effectively stun-lock shooty vehicles (I had a Land Raider that got all of one turn of shooting before getting effectively taken out of the game by a five-man DE Warrior squad in a test game the other day, they just stuck with it and kept it in combat and it never got to shoot non-overwatch shots again). If you make them immune to shooting at the same time it seems to me that you're buffing an unfun stall tactic and handing an across-the-board nerf to non-skimmer vehicles, most of which don't really need it.

If you really want to do this I'd suggest creating some kind of "defensive weapons" keyword that lets vehicles treat some weapons as having the Pistol type when stuck in melee (worded such that they only get this in melee, otherwise it'd be license to move and shoot at full BS with a whole bunch of stuff), and then give that to the sponson/pintle/hull weapons on Land Raider, Rhino, Leman Russ, and Chimera-chassis vehicles. And most of the Ork ground vehicles, which I can't easily classify as having "chassis" but which definitely should be able to use all those pintle Big Shootas to repel boarders if necessary. Not to the turrets, and probably not to lascannons, but you'd give vehicles some kind of defense against getting stunlocked by three dudes.

(The Chimera chassis and the base Phobos LR sort of mess with the "sponsons are defensive" thought process by having no sponsons (on the Chimera) and the defensive-size/function weapon on the hull mount with the big long-range guns on the sponsons (on the LR), but if "defensive weapon" is applied to individual weapons on individual vehicles that should be controllable.)

(And a Strength bar doesn't necessarily make sense; a Thunderfire cannon (Land Raider Achilles, no rules yet but it exists and the FW book is coming) is S5 and shouldn't be defensive, yet a Flamestorm cannon (LR Redeemer) is S6 and really ought to be.)

(I was going to suggest just porting the Baneblade's "Steel Behemoth" rule straight down (vehicle may fire while locked in combat, but only the S5- weapons can target folks you're in combat with, anything else has to shoot someone else; and the vehicle can move out of combat and fire freely as if it had Fly), but while that may make some sense ported to Land Raiders and maybe Russes it'd also let Basilisks and such fire at full effectiveness while the crew ought to be fighting off boarders, which seems somehow wrong to me.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with deleting falling back

I am not proposing deleting Fall Back.

Vehicles could have a different Fall Back,

Non-walker vehicles may always use their movement (instead of their Advance) when Falling Back.

and/or

Vehicles (without the Fly keyword) that Fall Back may still fire but at an additional -1 BS.

Mchaagen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with deleting falling back

I am not proposing deleting Fall Back.

Vehicles could have a different Fall Back,

Non-walker vehicles may always use their movement (instead of their Advance) when Falling Back.

and/or

Vehicles (without the Fly keyword) that Fall Back may still fire but at an additional -1 BS.

You're proposing taking a mechanic that already sort of screws ground vehicles and altering it to screw them more. You're also proposing taking the situation we've got, where the vehicle still gets its overwatch shots, and taking away the overwatch shots 1/2 the time. You're also proposing letting Jetbikes (and other things that advance more than just d6") perma-lock things in combat, and you're proposing letting Grots get free Mortal Wounds on Land Raiders.

Personally I don't think "deleting Falling Back" is too strong a phrasing to use here.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with deleting falling back

I am not proposing deleting Fall Back.

Vehicles could have a different Fall Back,

Non-walker vehicles may always use their movement (instead of their Advance) when Falling Back.

and/or

Vehicles (without the Fly keyword) that Fall Back may still fire but at an additional -1 BS.

You're proposing taking a mechanic that already sort of screws ground vehicles and altering it to screw them more. You're also proposing taking the situation we've got, where the vehicle still gets its overwatch shots, and taking away the overwatch shots 1/2 the time. You're also proposing letting Jetbikes (and other things that advance more than just d6") perma-lock things in combat, and you're proposing letting Grots get free Mortal Wounds on Land Raiders.

Personally I don't think "deleting Falling Back" is too strong a phrasing to use here.

No, claiming I'm "deleting Falling Back" is blatantly wrong.

If you read the part you quoted with my suggested change, grots would not get mortal wounds on your precious land raiders, and tanks could get overwatch shots because they would never be locked in combat. The jetbike issue could be addressed by changing it to a straight D6 roll-off.

Mchaagen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with deleting falling back

I am not proposing deleting Fall Back.

Vehicles could have a different Fall Back,

Non-walker vehicles may always use their movement (instead of their Advance) when Falling Back.

and/or

Vehicles (without the Fly keyword) that Fall Back may still fire but at an additional -1 BS.

You're proposing taking a mechanic that already sort of screws ground vehicles and altering it to screw them more. You're also proposing taking the situation we've got, where the vehicle still gets its overwatch shots, and taking away the overwatch shots 1/2 the time. You're also proposing letting Jetbikes (and other things that advance more than just d6") perma-lock things in combat, and you're proposing letting Grots get free Mortal Wounds on Land Raiders.

Personally I don't think "deleting Falling Back" is too strong a phrasing to use here.

No, claiming I'm "deleting Falling Back" is blatantly wrong.

If you read the part you quoted with my suggested change, grots would not get mortal wounds on your precious land raiders, and tanks could get overwatch shots because they would never be locked in combat. The jetbike issue could be addressed by changing it to a straight D6 roll-off.

Believe it or not we've sidestepped into an argument over literal and figurative use of "deleted". I'm aware that you're not suggesting deleting the "Falling Back" rule. I'm accusing you of deleting the action of falling back as a usable tactical option. But in any case I apologize for my inexactitude.

So...remember the bit a couple of posts up where I suggested adapting Steel Behemoth to give tanks more useful defensive shooting before the semantic argument got started? Want to talk about that instead?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Believe it or not we've sidestepped into an argument over literal and figurative use of "deleted". I'm aware that you're not suggesting deleting the "Falling Back" rule. I'm accusing you of deleting the action of falling back as a usable tactical option. But in any case I apologize for my inexactitude.

If you typed 'limiting,' or similar, it would be correct. Literally or even figuratively claiming I'm deleting Falling Back or the option to Fall Back is wrong. Period. You're also still using it in the underlined portion. The (usable tactical) option to fall back would still be there.

It would not be a guaranteed action, a bit similar to random charge distance.

If you don't want to get into a debate about how my rules proposal is or isn't 'deleting' Fall Back, then stop wrongly using that term.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So...remember the bit a couple of posts up where I suggested adapting Steel Behemoth to give tanks more useful defensive shooting before the semantic argument got started? Want to talk about that instead?

Vehicles (without the Fly keyword) that Fall Back may still fire but at an additional -1 BS

This along with the option for 'tank-type' vehicles to always Fall Back works better since there's no proviso to being able to target units in or out of combat with specific weapons. A tank could roll away then shoot it weapons at a -1 modifier, at any target(s).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mchaagen wrote:
A rules proposal to change Fall Back;

Units can attempt to pursue enemy units attempting to Fall Back. Both players roll off when a unit that is attempting to Fall Back is pursued. If the pursuing players' score is equal or higher [or the advantage could go to the falling back unit if this is too much of a detriment] the unit attempting to Fall Back is caught. Roll a D6 for a unit that has been caught, on a 1 nothing, on a 2-6 it suffers D3 mortal wounds [I might change or remove this extra damage entirely for initial play-testing]. If a pursuing unit is caught, both units stay in place. If a unit is not caught it may move its movement distance with the normal restrictions.

'Tank' units (non flyer, non-walker) can always Fall Back and cannot be pursued. However, a tank unit that falls back may still fire but at an additional -1 BS [or may only hit on 6's].

Or 'Tank' units can be pursued, but if within 1" of an enemy, may still fire at a reduced BS [hit on 6's].

Would this work?

---Edit---
Updated to incorporate additional feedback.

Mchaagen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

So...remember the bit a couple of posts up where I suggested adapting Steel Behemoth to give tanks more useful defensive shooting before the semantic argument got started? Want to talk about that instead?

Vehicles (without the Fly keyword) that Fall Back may still fire but at an additional -1 BS

This along with the option for 'tank-type' vehicles to always Fall Back works better since there's no proviso to being able to target units in or out of combat with specific weapons. A tank could roll away then shoot it weapons at a -1 modifier, at any target(s).

You were complaining up near the top of the page about tarpit units having to suffer through the rest of the army shooting at them when things walk out of combat, it seems like letting the vehicle do more while in combat strikes more of a balance than keeping the vehicle casually wandering out of combat and leaving the assault unit's butt hanging out for all the other guns on the table?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
You were complaining up near the top of the page about tarpit units having to suffer through the rest of the army shooting at them when things walk out of combat, it seems like letting the vehicle do more while in combat strikes more of a balance than keeping the vehicle casually wandering out of combat and leaving the assault unit's butt hanging out for all the other guns on the table?

Agreed. Not necessarily 'Tarpit' units, but any unit.

I've updated the original post to incorporate pursuing 'tank' units, but tanks may still fire if within 1" of an enemy at a deterred BS. It's probably the option I'll playtest with my group first.

I'm hesitant to use your idea of defensive weapons because it seems too restrictive for certain load-outs, since there were issues with that when it existed for tanks when they had defensive fire several editions ago.

Tanks with any type of flame weapon would then be ideal, but I think that would still work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if there are any alternatives to changing the D3 mortal wounds, I'd adapt them to avoid any potentially over-the-top situations..

Grots for example, doing mortal wounds to land raiders is an issue, even though it is now possible (however remote) for a grot to damage a heavily armed battle tank with its improvised close combat weapon and grot blaster in the first place.

Mchaagen wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
You were complaining up near the top of the page about tarpit units having to suffer through the rest of the army shooting at them when things walk out of combat, it seems like letting the vehicle do more while in combat strikes more of a balance than keeping the vehicle casually wandering out of combat and leaving the assault unit's butt hanging out for all the other guns on the table?

Agreed. Not necessarily 'Tarpit' units, but any unit.

I've updated the original post to incorporate pursuing 'tank' units, but tanks may still fire if within 1" of an enemy at a deterred BS. It's probably the option I'll playtest with my group first.

I'm hesitant to use your idea of defensive weapons because it seems too restrictive for certain load-outs, since there were issues with that when it existed for tanks when they had defensive fire several editions ago.

Tanks with any type of flame weapon would then be ideal, but I think that would still work.

There's usually a pretty quick answer to whether something should/shouldn't be "defensive"; even setting a Strength-based line (S5 and below are defensive, S6 and above aren't) there are (off the top of my head) two exceptions (Redeemer's flamestorm cannons (S6, should be defensive), Achilles' thunderfire cannon (S5, shouldn't be defensive)). That said I do recall the days of yore when "defensive weapon" meant "doesn't count against your maximum number of weapons fired after moving at speed (X)", when the line was S6 and my Falcons could go as far as they wanted and shoot every weapon because starcannons, which seemed off.

I suppose the fact that in this case the solution has to work for a subset of Codexes (since Necron, Tau, and Eldar/DE/Harlequin/whatever vehicles all Fly (except the War Walker, which has other problems), and Tyranids and the Mechanicum don't have non-walker vehicles right now) does make it easier. None of this "but if we set the bar at S5 the human heavy bolter is defensive and the Eldar equivalent isn't..." nonsense. The Eldar underslung shuriken cannon doesn't get to be defensive, but the Eldar just don't care because they can casually walk out of combat with anything that's got it since it flies.

What loadouts does it seem to restrict?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, if there are any alternatives to changing the D3 mortal wounds, I'd adapt them to avoid any potentially over-the-top situations..

Grots for example, doing mortal wounds to land raiders is an issue, even though it is now possible (however remote) for a grot to damage a heavily armed battle tank with its improvised close combat weapon and grot blaster in the first place.

The short answer would be to just make it hits rather than mortal wounds. Still riskier than sitting and getting attacked in combat (since there's no chance the enemy is going to miss), but you still only take wounds if you're running away from someone who can actually hurt you.

When specific weapons are defensive and others are not regardless of whether they are turret or side-sponson, hull-mounted, etc(lascannon in your example). That's when those types of weapon options become restricted when defining a 'defensive weapon' profile.

Pintle mounted weapons would probably work well with that rule. That's where I would stop if I used it.

Standard wounds could work, and I was thinking about using that or a similar rule. I may add it later when I think about some of the details.

Mchaagen wrote:
When specific weapons are defensive and others are not regardless of whether they are turret or side-sponson, hull-mounted, etc(lascannon in your example). That's when those types of weapon options become restricted when defining a 'defensive weapon' profile.

Pintle mounted weapons would probably work well with that rule. That's where I would stop if I used it.

Standard wounds could work, and I was thinking about using that or a similar rule. I may add it later when I think about some of the details.

...Yeah, no fire arcs does make the situation kind of odd. Pintle weapons only would still make a big difference for vehicles (especially with four shots at that range from storm bolters these days), though I'd suggest adding the Heresy pintle weapon options (combi-weapon, heavy bolter, heavy flamer) to Imperial/Chaos vehicles to bring them a little more in line with the Orkish equivalent (you can have four pintle Big Shootas on a Battlewaggon).

I agree there should be a test for falling back, but make it simple. Compare WS, and roll a D6. If WS is equal you can fallback at 4+. If the enemys WS is 3+, and mine is 4+, i need a 5+ to fallback.

Falling back is one of the best things they've added to this edition.

One thing I hope I never see again, is someone hoping that their charging unit doesn't wipe out the target, so they can be shielded from return fire of the entire army.

"Whoops I killed all but 1 guy, guess you can't shoot me!"

I think people are overrating how easy it is for many units to actually fall back. Units with fly have it super easy, but other units not as much. I think the fallback mechanic is good because it forces the assaulting player to carefully consider their positioning to make falling back difficult.

Further it encourages multi-assaults as requiring a lot of units to suffer the fallback penalty would be difficult for some armies.

I think if anything fly needs to be changed to not auto allow full BS shooting in the next phase. Maybe those units should only hit on 6s or suffer some other to hit penalty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said I think if you were looking for a simple solution to the mechanic, you just need to give the unit that was engaged something like a D6" consolidation move. That way slower units may have trouble getting away, or other units could be engaged if the opponent flees.

so a unit with 5" movement, if they were in base contact would get caught on a roll of 4+ because the enemy would still be within 1", but also if they fled it might mean another unit within 7" could be caught in combat. This would force them into a choice about whether risking this would be worth it. Obviously this means anything with movement 8" or higher can always get away assuming they can move their full distance, but that makes more sense.


If you wanted to make this more punishing you could say that if caught the unit in question strikes last in the next fight phase.

Falling back definitely is the new mechanic GW intended with this addition to avoid the the tar-pit and as previously mentioned one model surviving and unable to shoot it. It also prevents army units form being totally wiped out because they lost h-2-h and then had an unlucky initiative check when they ran.

Tactically speaking falling back, which still occurs in modern day, is a legitimate strategy. A unit will push forward to engage and then fall back to help lay an ambush/ feint. In 40k this was a mechanic badly missing, it already taxes the unit by disallowing shooting unless otherwise noted. Falling back also disallows recharging. You need a special ability better than FLY to do so. Because according to the rules, FLY allows the disengagement and shooting of a unit but it does not give them back the ability to charge. You need something like Big 'n' Stompy to do that.

I would also disagree with the proposed D6 consolidation rules because a heavily wound vehicle would could get less than 6in of movement thus allowing the continuation of the "see I am by this so you can't shoot me" issue. Thus allowing a player to be close enough to one unit but then giving them enough extra movement to potentially go attack something else when it isn't their turn. I'm thinking about a giant blob of thunder wolf cavalry that would become super unbalanced again.

This may be a bit of topic' but I will share my experience anyway.

So, me and my friend played a game.
Me, Khorne demons VS my friends' chaos slaneesh marines.

I got so brutally bend over that we quickly realise there were something wrong
Now the reason why it was so difficult for me to be in control of the game, was due to fall back rule.

I was almost 100% melee army, while he was almost 100% range. (1000pts vs 1000pts)

Here's the thing, I charge, I mange only to kill a few, in his turn, he does a fall back with his units, on this turn, on the movement phase he takes the closest units that are available, lock on and shot. In assault phase, he charges with a troop into my units and make sure to hold my units' locket there. And then repeat in his second turn.

All my heavy units were downed at round 3, bloodthrone and bloodthirster.
It was impossible to get close to his heavy units
So, my conclusion' he can do twice the amount of damage by go along with this rule.

The battle was over on round 4, I lost 90% of my units, while his side' he has 85% left standing.

I will be honest about one thing,
is that we did not play objective. Just annihilation, so no wonder.

But, my thoughts are either' the fall back rules have to change, or khorne demons and other heavily close combat teams(codex) are given some ability to counter the fall back rule.

Unless you people have some tactical ideas to share that can give me some advantage, I be very happy to hear them out.

In general CC got weaker (no +1A on charge, no sweeping advances, harder to hit with powerfists etc), which is fine. But I agree that Falling Back with impunity penalizes CC-oriented armies.

As a remedy I would suggest that if you decide to Fall Back, both players roll a dice. If the unit that is falling back loses the roll off it suffers as many mortal wounds as the roll off difference was and completes the Fall Back move after that. Falling Back is not a bad mechanic but it's too easy and offers no real downside for shooty armies.